Useless complaining about the state of the world (Game of Thrones version)

[Mordar]

From a Yahoo article recap of the GoT season finale today:


The Red Wedding scene was very traumatic for those of us who don't read the books. The season finale was pretty lackluster, no plot twists of any sort. I also have to say that Daenerys was a respectable character in the first season, but has subsequently become less interesting. Plus when are we gonna see her dragons set fire to an entire army, or the White Walkers even? Again I don't read the books, I don't have that kind of time on my hands.

<sigh>

To paraphrase (and ironically put the paraphrase in quotes...):

"I have at least 10 hours to spend watching HBO*, and time to spend reading Yahoo articles on the show, and time to spend writing comments on those articles. But time to read a book? Come on now, that's crazy talk."

Sometimes little things like this make me sad.

- M

* - Though it is conjecture, my guess is that someone with the desire to pay for cable in general and premium channels in particular probably watches a little more than just one show a week...but I concede that it could be other people in the house that support the HBO expense

[Brother Oni]

"I have at least 10 hours to spend watching HBO*, and time to spend reading Yahoo articles on the show, and time to spend writing comments on those articles. But time to read a book? Come on now, that's crazy talk."

Sometimes little things like this make me sad.


Being charitable, they may be doing other things while watching the show.

Being less so, one suspects that the last book they read was part of compulsory education and probably had a fairly high picture to word ratio too.

[JadedDM]

Maybe the author reads at the same speed Davos does?

[Tengu_temp]

I've yet to hear the "I don't have time to read books" argument be used genuinely, not as an excuse by someone who wouldn't read them no matter what anyway.

[T-O-E]

It's not like ASOIAF is high literature or anything. It's enjoyable and I've spent way too much time talking/thinking about it but it loses very little from being converted to TV.

Sometimes I wish I hadn't read the books, not to get the time back but just to experience the show differently.

Also, have you seen how thick those things are? I read them quite quickly because I was engrossed but the third one is something like 1200 pages long.

[Brother Oni]

Also, have you seen how thick those things are? I read them quite quickly because I was engrossed but the third one is something like 1200 pages long.

Think of it as value for money. :smalltongue:

Too many people would like their entertainment spoonfed to them,thus in my opinion, most people saying 'I don't have the time to read' generally mean 'I can't be bothered to put the effort into reading' rather than actually not have the time.

[SmartAlec]

There's always the mighty audiobook.

Even if listening to ASoIaF audiobooks while driving might lead to some aggression spikes.

[Kato]

There's always the mighty audiobook.

Even if listening to ASoIaF audiobooks while driving might lead to some aggression spikes.

Yeah, I think this might lead to dangerous behaviour...


Well, while I do enjoy books and read the ASOIAF books... I guess I can see how people would not want to read the books, even if it is just because they are too lazy to read. Being lazy may be a poor character trait but we all are lazy in our own ways. (Well, I am and I dare say most people are)
The things is... it is much easier to watch a show and do something else at the same time than it is to read a book and do (most) other things. Audiobooks are much easier to manage but there aren't good audio books for every book, I'd wager.

[Deepbluediver]

I read the books before they where cool.

/hipster


On the one hand, I love the idea that a fantasy series is getting money and attention shoveled at it, because it gives me hope that more good series will recieve this kind of treatment in the future.

On the other hand, this was a series that was already successful before it become a hit TV show. There are some stories that are better told in one medium or another, for a variety of reasons, and I get kind of tired of just seeing Hollywood convert frome one to the other, instead of writing from scratch with a particular style in mind.

/firstworldproblems

[Brendan]

I'm not totally sure I agree. Sometimes I spend three hours finishing a book and then want nothing more than to sit and watch TV. It's entirely possible that this person reads many, many books, but just not this particular series because he or she doesn't have the time.

Also, not everyone has a passion for reading. I do and most of my friends do, but I don't judge people who have different interests.

[warty goblin]

Or they just don't like reading epic fantasy. Hell, I don't really like reading epic fantasy anymore, when it comes down to it.

I can certainly appreciate why somebody would happily watch Game of Thrones, but not slate time to read A Song of Ice and Fire, even if they loved reading. GoT is hella enjoyable genre TV, a person could reasonably spend their reading time reading other sorts of things that don't work well as TV.

[Mordar]

I'm not totally sure I agree. Sometimes I spend three hours finishing a book and then want nothing more than to sit and watch TV. It's entirely possible that this person reads many, many books, but just not this particular series because he or she doesn't have the time.

Also, not everyone has a passion for reading. I do and most of my friends do, but I don't judge people who have different interests.


Or they just don't like reading epic fantasy. Hell, I don't really like reading epic fantasy anymore, when it comes down to it.

I can certainly appreciate why somebody would happily watch Game of Thrones, but not slate time to read A Song of Ice and Fire, even if they loved reading. GoT is hella enjoyable genre TV, a person could reasonably spend their reading time reading other sorts of things that don't work well as TV.

All fair and accurate positions, which would, in my opinion, be much better represented by "I don't want to read the books at this point in my life."

"I don't have time" (particularly when used as described in the original post) is the vaguely insulting cop out that suggests that spending time reading fiction is less valuable than watching fiction, reading blogs about watching the fiction and then commenting on those blogs. That was really my (useless) complaint - not that they didn't read the books, but that they used the cop out excuse.

Again, a minor thing that came up at a time when I had my "sigh" on about the state of appreciation of art hereabouts. Like Deepbluediver said, First World Problems, huh?

- M

[Brother Oni]

Also, not everyone has a passion for reading. I do and most of my friends do, but I don't judge people who have different interests.

I understand that and don't have an issue with it. Neither do I have an issue with audiobooks or doing something else while watching the show instead of reading (I like to lift weights while I watch things).

I have an issue with people making idle speculation (dragons killing things with fire in the quoted post) then dismissively refusing to go read the original source with the implication that it seems too onerous a task, yet they've spent considerable time reading and commenting on articles about the show.

If it wasn't for that last sentence (in particular the way it was worded), I wouldn't have an axe to grind.

Edit: In other words, what Mordar said. :smallsigh:

[Tvtyrant]

I read the books when they came back, and I actually think the show is much better. I didn't like the books much. I was reading a lot of other series at the same time, such as Wheel of Time, and A Song of Ice and Fire never grasped my interest. Could be because they kill people so fast :P

[Cespenar]

I think the "not enough time" thing is an illusion, mostly. The series come in bite-size episodes that air once every week, in a predetermined hour (which is a pretty loose schedule, if you're watching one series only).

In contrast, when you reach for a book, its entirety is in your hands, and your pace is yours to decide. The openness of that "contract" may be intimidating for some people.

In reality, though, watching all three seasons equal to, what, 30 hours? Not that short, really. I daresay you could read the first two books in that period of time (or come close to it, at least), if not for the aforementioned illusion.

[JustSomeGuy]

Why has no one commented on the plot twist bs? I could see the need for a plot hook to keep people wanting next series, or a major plot point to cap the current series, but why does it need a plot twist? Unless it was shamalama posting, which might explain why he's too busy to read too!

[Water_Bear]

My favorite part has to be "Plus when are we going to see her dragons set fire to [...] the White Walkers [...]?"

When can we see the final battle between Fire-Made-Flesh and the Long Night? Which is (possibly) the culmination of pretty much every plot thread in the entire Song of Ice and Fire series? Maybe in another four seasons you impatient twit.

:smallsigh:

[TheSummoner]

Q: When will the dragons set fire to an entire army?
A: When they're not the size of dogs.

[Flickerdart]

Maybe the author reads at the same speed Davos does?
Why is there a g in night?

[Deepbluediver]

Why is there a g in night?

I'm not sure, exactly, but here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gh_(digraph)) would probably be a good place to start researching.
Actual, non-PC answer: English is a stupid language.

[snoopy13a]

In reality, though, watching all three seasons equal to, what, 30 hours? Not that short, really. I daresay you could read the first two books in that period of time (or come close to it, at least), if not for the aforementioned illusion.

Depends on how fast you read. Someone who reads 30 pages an hour would get through 900 pages, which would put someone through the first book and about midway through the second. If you read 50 pages an hour then that would just about do it. Of course, that would get through the first two books while the TV shows has more or less gone through the first three books.

Ironically, even though I like the books, I wouldn't recommend anyone starting them. The reasons are that the TV show will almost certainly finish before the novels do, and that there's a decent chance that Martin will not finish writing them.

And yes, I understand that Martin does not owe us anything and isn't obligated to finish the series. However, it is a two-way street. I'm perfectly justified to dissuade people from reading his works if I believe he won't finish them.

[Deepbluediver]

Ironically, even though I like the books, I wouldn't recommend anyone starting them. The reasons are that the TV show will almost certainly finish before the novels do, and that there's a decent chance that Martin will not finish writing them.

I assumed that the huge 5-year gap in between books was because he was busy hashing out a TV-deal.

I think that he'll finish up, if only because all those script writers can now help him along.
The worst thing that could happen IMO, would be if it followed the same pattern as manga/anime, and the TV overtook the books. Then you either have to make GoT-filler, or the plot diverges into two seperate directions.

[Brother Oni]

Why is there a g in night?

The scene that sprang to mind when Davos said that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9V7zbWNznbs#t=134s). :smallbiggrin:

[Cespenar]

Of course, that would get through the first two books while the TV shows has more or less gone through the first three books.

Which have nowhere around the same content in the first place. The series, while a great production, looks like what you'd get if you squeeze the content from the books, throw away half of it, put it through a strainer, and throw away another half.

[Anteros]

I assumed that the huge 5-year gap in between books was because he was busy hashing out a TV-deal.

I think that he'll finish up, if only because all those scrip writers can now help him along.
The worst thing that could happen IMO, would be if it followed the same pattern as manga/anime, and the TV overtook the books. Then you either have to make GoT-filler, or the plot diverges into two seperate directions.

The plot divergence is going to happen. Even a normal author wouldn't be able to keep up with the pace of the show...much less the most notoriously slow author of all time.

There have already been reported arguments between him and HBO over it.

Also, in regards to the original post....I enjoy epic fantasy and reading, but even I found that the series turned into an unfun slog around book 3 or 4 and stopped reading. Who has time to devote 100 hours into reading something they don't enjoy?

[thubby]

i actually found the books quite lame.

[Grif]

i actually found the books quite lame.

How so, might I ask?

[thubby]

How so, might I ask?

the main issue i took with the books is that they would build up an event, then switch to the other characters.
worse still, when we finally came back, the action had passed!:smallfurious:

[Deepbluediver]

the main issue i took with the books is that they would build up an event, then switch to the other characters.
worse still, when we finally came back, the action had passed!:smallfurious:

For any particular story, I usually either read the book/comics OR see the TV show/Movie. Generally, I find that whichever one I see second upsets me because of whatever they changed.

[Soras Teva Gee]

When can we see the final battle between Fire-Made-Flesh and the Long Night? Which is (possibly) the culmination of pretty much every plot thread in the entire Song of Ice and Fire series? Maybe in another four seasons decades you impatient twit.


Fixed that for you to account for GRRM's writing speed. :smalltongue:

[Jerthanis]

I don't get why people are so upset about the Red Wedding... it's when the first round of bad guys finally lose. :smallconfused:

I mean, it was certainly unexpected, so maybe people are upset at the anticlimax of it all, but their stupid decisions finally bringing them down under the weight of it all makes a lot of sense to me.

[TSGames]

I don't get why people are so upset about the Red Wedding... it's when the first round of bad guys finally lose. :smallconfused:

I mean, it was certainly unexpected, so maybe people are upset at the anticlimax of it all, but their stupid decisions finally bringing them down under the weight of it all makes a lot of sense to me.
I agree somehwat. Cait died and that made me very happy, but then....well, if you've been reading you know the score :smallannoyed: But Rob died and Lord Umber, and the Wolf, and there's probably no follow up to Jon being declared the heir given that there's so much else going on. I can see why some people are upset. Personally, I thought it was fantastic writing; definitely the moment when I knew I would finish reading the whole series.

Also, I agree about people complaining that they "don't have tme to read the book" 99% of the time, it's just an excuse. In general, if a book is written above the level of Harry Potter (3rd grade reading level), it is simply too difficult for most people to read; not that they can't read the words and understand individual sentences, but that they don't have the capability to do much more beyond that. It's sad, but that's the world we live in. At least the show seems to keep a good number of those people entertained, if only because of boobs.

[Deepbluediver]

I don't get why people are so upset about the Red Wedding... it's when the first round of bad guys finally lose. :smallconfused:

You're gonna have to explain that one to me. I've only read the books and not watched the TV show, so maybe the characterization or outcome was a little different (or maybe my memory is just faulty), but...

Isn't it the Starks and their allies who get murdered at the red wedding? In a world of grey, black, and darker black, they seem to be the closest you can get to some one who is "good". Even if they stray into honorable-stupid territory a little more often than is healthy.

[Mordar]

I don't get why people are so upset about the Red Wedding... it's when the first round of bad guys finally lose.


You're gonna have to explain that one to me. I've only read the books and not watched the TV show, so maybe the characterization or outcome was a little different (or maybe my memory is just faulty), but...

Isn't it the Starks and their allies who get murdered at the red wedding? In a world of grey, black, and darker black, they seem to be the closest you can get to some one who is "good". Even if they stray into honorable-stupid territory a little more often than is healthy.

I think it is mostly that there is a group of people who view events with 20/20 hindsight and decry the people in your spoiler for sub-optimal decision making as the events are unfolding.

In short, Cat is blasted for releasing Jaime, relying on the Lannister motto to hold him to the terms of the release. Understandable, but bad, decision. To many, that decision suggests she deserves to be put to death by her own son. Tough crowd.

Robb is blasted for marrying the girl he loves (both of the heart and body) instead of holding to his promise with the Freys. The bad decision was sleeping with her, as his sense of right and wrong dictates that requires marriage. Understandable, but bad decision. To many, this suggests "stupid morals get in the way of MOAR POWAH and a kingship, so he should die", and they miss the whole point of the Stark family.

See also: People who use the phrase "Lawful Stupid" to define anyone that elects to take the criminal to jail instead of just killing them (even though killing them would eliminate trouble later on)

[Finlam]

I think it is mostly that there is a group of people who view events with 20/20 hindsight and decry the people in your spoiler for sub-optimal decision making as the events are unfolding.

In short, Cat is blasted for releasing Jaime, relying on the Lannister motto to hold him to the terms of the release. Understandable, but bad, decision. To many, that decision suggests she deserves to be put to death by her own son. Tough crowd.

Robb is blasted for marrying the girl he loves (both of the heart and body) instead of holding to his promise with the Freys. The bad decision was sleeping with her, as his sense of right and wrong dictates that requires marriage. Understandable, but bad decision. To many, this suggests "stupid morals get in the way of MOAR POWAH and a kingship, so he should die", and they miss the whole point of the Stark family.

See also: People who use the phrase "Lawful Stupid" to define anyone that elects to take the criminal to jail instead of just killing them (even though killing them would eliminate trouble later on)

Cait's decisions (notice the 's') were all incredibly stupid. At least Rob had only one bad decision.

Anyway, I don't think that's what Jerthanis meant. I think he was talking about it as the turning point where the bad guys start to suffer the consequences of their actions. After the RW, Freys are murdered left and right, Joffrey is killed, even the hound will get his come-uppance. All of those are, arguably, a result of the RW (though there is not enough context to say if Joffrey would still have been killed, or if the orchestrator his demise would have waited if the Stark army had still been around). Then the Lannister house begins to crumble, Cercesi becomes the only character dumber than Cait, Gregor is killed, etc. This is the moment that everything looks bleakest for the Starks, but it is the turning point where everything begins to go bad for the numerous bad guys, a lot of which is related to the RW, most of which simply happens afterward.*

*WARNING SERIOUS SPOILER THROUGH BOOK, NOT SEASON, 3, DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW

[snoopy13a]

Also, I agree about people complaining that they "don't have tme to read the book" 99% of the time, it's just an excuse. In general, if a book is written above the level of Harry Potter (3rd grade reading level), it is simply too difficult for most people to read; not that they can't read the words and understand individual sentences, but that they don't have the capability to do much more beyond that. It's sad, but that's the world we live in. At least the show seems to keep a good number of those people entertained, if only because of boobs.

Elitist much?

While some non-readers are poor readers, the majority of non-readers do not read because they simply do not like reading. It isn't that they can't read and understand literature, but rather that they prefer not to. Not everyone likes to curl up with a book for a few hours at a time. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Simply put, not everyone likes novels. Further, among those who like novels, many do not like fantasy or science fiction. This does not make those people lesser individuals, just people with different tastes.

And when it comes to fantasy, there are certain stylistic norms that both attract and repel readers. For example, fantasy works tend to consist of a series of very lengthy volumes with third-person narration told from multiple perspectives. Relatively few fantasy works are short and relatively few are told from the first-person perspective.

On the other hand, "traditional" 20th and 21st novels are stand-alone works that usually run about 200 to 500 pages and tend to have a single first-person narrator or third-person narration told from a single character's perspective. That, of course, doesn't apply to all novels. Ulysses, for example, is lengthy and has several viewpoints. On the other hand, Ulysses was probably the most complex novel of the 20th century that was revolutionary and experimental (and arguably the greatest English-language novel). Nonetheless, modern literature tends to be concise--especially in comparison to 19th century literature, like Dickens.

But fantasy is a genre that doesn't prize conciseness. In fact, it seems to encourage the opposite. From an outside perspective (that is, outside the industry), it appears that the business model is to write and publish novels that tell (mostly) compete stories but with openings for sequels. The hope is enough people purchase the initial novel so that the author can write a profitable series. The underlying message is that selling more books is more important than a tight, concise, solid story. Nowhere is this highlighted more than on B&N's e-book site where seemingly every fantasy or science fiction work has a parenthetical that identifies it as as X of Y of The ABC Series.

Granted, the lengthy volumes are an attraction for many fantasy fans. They tend to enjoy epicness so length isn't that much of an issue. But even an epic need not be that long. The Lord of the Rings, for example, is roughly 1200 pages. Very lengthy for a novel (technically, it is a novel not a trilogy), but it pales in comparison to numerous other works.

This can be perplexing for someone looking to enter the fantasy genre for the first time. They might ask: why could the creator of Robert Jordan tell powerful stories in story stories, novellas, and relatively brief novels while the assumer of Robert Jordan could not complete a story in eleven lengthy volumes? Of course, it is more complex than that and a fantasy fan would point out that each volume usually contains several storylines. Outsiders, however, may find fantasy too prolix for their tastes.

At the end of the day, let's look at A Song of Ice and Fire. At this point, the author has written five lengthy volumes (along with some shorter auxiliary works). Originally, the plan was seven volumes but portions of the fourth were held off until the fifth. So we are somewhere around 9/14ths of the way through. That's assuming, of course, that it'll be nicely tied up at the end. In A Wheel of Time, it took Sanderson three lengthy volumes to account for the "last book," for example. So Martin probably has at least three more volumes to write. It is to the point that the HBO series will likely overtake the novels and finish first.

Why then should an outsider start the books? It is easy to understand why many would rather spend their free time on something else.

[Jerthanis]

Isn't it the Starks and their allies who get murdered at the red wedding? In a world of grey, black, and darker black, they seem to be the closest you can get to some one who is "good". Even if they stray into honorable-stupid territory a little more often than is healthy.


In a word... no. No, the Starks are the bad guys. You're fooled into thinking they're the good guys because they're the earliest viewpoint characters, they get animal companions, and are generally young and idealistic. However, their adherence to the rigid dictates of Honor without consideration for how their actions affect themselves and others is the absolute height of callousness.

The Starks, through their adherence to following the law has doomed the south to not knowing about the White Walkers, has plunged the seven kingdoms into a terrible civil war in which the kingdom's greatest warriors are spent fighting each other and the last harvests are burned and wasted when winter is coming. They are the bad guys.

"Deserve to die" is a bit further than I'd go describing Robb and Caitlyn and the Northern rebellion, but they're not the good guys, and the Red Wedding was I think a great way to kill people who have a slavish adherence to Honor above and beyond the actual harm caused by their actions. The Lannisters/Freys being willing to trade their honor for a swifter end to the rebellion, with less overall bloodshed and time devoted to it? Seems the right choice to me.

Not that the Lannisters are the good guys, Joffrey is probably the third or fourth worst person in the books, and the Lannisters made the war worse for the citizenry than they really had to. They're no saints, but the Starks are the aggressors of an unjust war to protect their honor.

Honestly, the thing I like BEST about the Game of Thrones is that everyone has reasons for doing the things they do, and conflict arising out of it. No one is just Evil for the Sake of it.

[Deepbluediver]

In a word... no. No, the Starks are the bad guys. You're fooled into thinking they're the good guys because they're the earliest viewpoint characters, they get animal companions, and are generally young and idealistic. However, their adherence to the rigid dictates of Honor without consideration for how their actions affect themselves and others is the absolute height of callousness.

The Starks, through their adherence to following the law has doomed the south to not knowing about the White Walkers, has plunged the seven kingdoms into a terrible civil war in which the kingdom's greatest warriors are spent fighting each other and the last harvests are burned and wasted when winter is coming. They are the bad guys.

"Deserve to die" is a bit further than I'd go describing Robb and Caitlyn and the Northern rebellion, but they're not the good guys, and the Red Wedding was I think a great way to kill people who have a slavish adherence to Honor above and beyond the actual harm caused by their actions. The Lannisters/Freys being willing to trade their honor for a swifter end to the rebellion, with less overall bloodshed and time devoted to it? Seems the right choice to me.

Not that the Lannisters are the good guys, Joffrey is probably the third or fourth worst person in the books, and the Lannisters made the war worse for the citizenry than they really had to. They're no saints, but the Starks are the aggressors of an unjust war to protect their honor.

Honestly, the thing I like BEST about the Game of Thrones is that everyone has reasons for doing the things they do, and conflict arising out of it.

Hmm, an interesting point of view; I'd never thought about it quite that way before. I hoped you picked up from my initial post that I wasn't holding up the Starks as paragons of virtue.

Doesn't that mean you've pretty much answered you're own question, though? People are upset at the RW because they (mistakenly) think it's all the "good guys" getting their collective arse handed to them.

Also, you seem to blame the Starks for everything bad currently happening, but it seems like only the most recent in a long chain of events.
We could blame Joffrey for executing Ned Stark.
But then we'd be back to Ned's unwavering sense of honor for the ultimatum he gave Cersie.
Then we have it be her fault for the incest and the murder.
Then it was the fault of whoever pushed her into the marriage with Robert.
Who was only king because of the previous revolt.
Which happened because the king was mad from the PREVIOUS bout of inter-family-lovin'.

And all this assumes that Stannis didn't kick off his own rebelion; didn't he find out about it before Ned? (sorry, might have gotten some of the names mixed up; once again it's been a while).

It feels a little harsh to blame just the Starks when some conflict seemed practically inevitable.


No one is just Evil for the Sake of it.

Not amongst the main characters, anyway. There are a few secondary types that seem quite fond of torture.

[warty goblin]

But fantasy is a genre that doesn't prize conciseness. In fact, it seems to encourage the opposite. From an outside perspective (that is, outside the industry), it appears that the business model is to write and publish novels that tell (mostly) compete stories but with openings for sequels. The hope is enough people purchase the initial novel so that the author can write a profitable series. The underlying message is that selling more books is more important than a tight, concise, solid story. Nowhere is this highlighted more than on B&N's e-book site where seemingly every fantasy or science fiction work has a parenthetical that identifies it as as X of Y of The ABC Series.

What's interesting about this is that, insofar as I can tell, the descent of fantasy into interminable series and volumes of great length really only gets started in the late nineties. Before that, if my perusal of my collection and the used book store down the way is any indication, fantasy novels tended to be no longer than most other genres of novel. And while fantasy series were certainly a thing, they seemed to very often be sets of books connected by a common protagonist or setting, rather than a single story chopped into multiple volumes.

This may be why I read so little contemporary fantasy anymore. With very few exceptions, the mega-brick series aren't so much richer than their shorter predecessors, as just a vastly longer rendition of basically the same thing.


Granted, the lengthy volumes are an attraction for many fantasy fans. They tend to enjoy epicness so length isn't that much of an issue. But even an epic need not be that long. The Lord of the Rings, for example, is roughly 1200 pages. Very lengthy for a novel (technically, it is a novel not a trilogy), but it pales in comparison to numerous other works.
I think LoTR is only 1200 counting appendices. Sans those, my edition weighs in at barely over a thousand. And the appendices are absolutely not necessary for enjoying the story.

[TSGames]

Elitist much?

Quite grounded, in fact, no less. While the 99% was an exaggeration, the real number falls closer to 87% (http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp) according to the most comprehensive study on the subject of adult literacy to date (http://nces.ed.gov/naal/). You'll find people often don't enjoy trying to do things they are not good at doing, such as grasp subtlety or the deeper meanings of prose. To give a basis for comparison, the earlier 1993 study (http://nces.ed.gov/naal/nals_products.asp) put the average proficiency between 8th and 9th grade, and it hasn't changed much in 10 years.

[Mordar]

What's interesting about this is that, insofar as I can tell, the descent of fantasy into interminable series and volumes of great length really only gets started in the late nineties. Before that, if my perusal of my collection and the used book store down the way is any indication, fantasy novels tended to be no longer than most other genres of novel. And while fantasy series were certainly a thing, they seemed to very often be sets of books connected by a common protagonist or setting, rather than a single story chopped into multiple volumes.

This may be why I read so little contemporary fantasy anymore. With very few exceptions, the mega-brick series aren't so much richer than their shorter predecessors, as just a vastly longer rendition of basically the same thing.

I'm not sure about that timing - I certainly remember (and own) a lot of "series" books from before the late 90s...Eddings, Brooks, Weis/Hickman, Salvatore, Anthony etc. were already well-established by that time point, and that doesn't touch the long-standing authors (e.g. Herbert, Leiber, etc) or the pulp series (Thieves' World and the like).

I do, however, think you're right on when it comes to the size issue. For a long while, Sword of Shannara was a "big" book at around 600 pages, and the vast majority of other fantasy books were in the 250-400 range. My recollection is that Wheel of Time and later Harry Potter were key spring boards for page expansion, and set the table for the Eregons and similar doorstop-sized volumes.

That we now have series of doorstops is the natural progression of industry that is risk-averse but dollar-hungry - if a little something is good, more of it is better, and a sequel to a good seller has better odds than a new novel. Multiply that by "a mediocre work by a known author significantly outsells a good work by an unknown author" and you've got a formula that keeps a publisher afloat in an era where many imprints are shuttering.

See also: Films, Hollywood.

Isn't it interesting, though, that many of the paragons of fantasy lit wrote small books? Go pulp-power!

[snoopy13a]

Quite grounded, in fact, no less. While the 99% was an exaggeration, the real number falls closer to 87% (http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp) according to the most comprehensive study on the subject of adult literacy to date (http://nces.ed.gov/naal/). You'll find people often don't enjoy trying to do things they are not good at doing, such as grasp subtlety or the deeper meanings of prose. To give a basis for comparison, the earlier 1993 study (http://nces.ed.gov/naal/nals_products.asp) put the average proficiency between 8th and 9th grade, and it hasn't changed much in 10 years.

According to that study, 57% of adult Americans in 2003 could perform "moderately challenging literary activities." Sure, perhaps only 13% or so can fully parse Melville or Joyce, but most literature is approachable by the majority of Americans. And let's face it, A Song of Ice of Fire isn't exactly Moby ****.

[warty goblin]

I'm not sure about that timing - I certainly remember (and own) a lot of "series" books from before the late 90s...Eddings, Brooks, Weis/Hickman, Salvatore, Anthony etc. were already well-established by that time point, and that doesn't touch the long-standing authors (e.g. Herbert, Leiber, etc) or the pulp series (Thieves' World and the like).

You're probably right on this point, now I think on it.


I do, however, think you're right on when it comes to the size issue. For a long while, Sword of Shannara was a "big" book at around 600 pages, and the vast majority of other fantasy books were in the 250-400 range. My recollection is that Wheel of Time and later Harry Potter were key spring boards for page expansion, and set the table for the Eregons and similar doorstop-sized volumes.
While it is by any reasonable measure fantasy, I don't think so much of this can be attributed to Harry Potter. I get the distinct impression that while people who read a lot of fantasy probably have read Potter, the inverse is absolutely not true, and the series' success comes mostly from a very different audience.


That we now have series of doorstops is the natural progression of industry that is risk-averse but dollar-hungry - if a little something is good, more of it is better, and a sequel to a good seller has better odds than a new novel. Multiply that by "a mediocre work by a known author significantly outsells a good work by an unknown author" and you've got a formula that keeps a publisher afloat in an era where many imprints are shuttering.
I'm not sure we need to get into arguments about the quality of the work to understand what's going on. For one thing both Martin and Terry Goodkind write long doorstopper fantasy series books about important human themes, but quality wise they are coming from pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum. Say what you will about certain completely pointless subplots in A Dance with Dragons, but it's nowhere near the argument for human extinction constituted by Faith of the Fallen.

I suspect a simpler explanation is that structurally a really long fantasy novel is a fairly natural evolution of the genre. 'Worldbuilding' at some point seems to have become, instead of a tool for employed for the good of the story, an end in its own right. Once you're writing and reading with that outlook, I think brevity is no longer a virtue to the degree it was previously. If a major point of the book is providing a sort of walking tour of made-up history and geography, who cares if the page-count resembles the national debt and literally nothing of importance to the plot has happened in the last two books?

This probably ties in with the declining importance of magazines and with them short stories, but I don't really have a good enough understanding of the genre to argue that. I also wonder if there hasn't been a shift from relatively straightforwards adventure stories to big clash of nations political type stuff.

Isn't it interesting, though, that many of the paragons of fantasy lit wrote small books? Go pulp-power!
As I said above, I suspect there's been something of a shift from adventure to political drama. Personally, I blame rampant insecurity among fantasy authors and readers alike. At some point everybody decided that fantasy had to be Serious Important Literature, and therefore needed politics and schemes and grim darkness so people with really good abs and fur swimsuits fighting giant snakes on prehistoric Mars just didn't cut it.

Which I find has been in some ways good, and in some ways not. On the one hand, new plotlines are not a bad thing. On the other, it's not like good pulp was necessarily devoid of more complex underpinnings. Lovecraft is pulpy as it gets, and presents a cohesive philosophy and worldview nevertheless. Leigh Bracket's Eric John Stark stories are basically about Conan in space yes, but there's some pretty punchy post-colonial ideas underneath all that. Michael Moorcock may be frequently a bit insufferable, but it's hardly due to a lack of ambition in his sword and sorcery stuff.

[Water_Bear]

As I said above, I suspect there's been something of a shift from adventure to political drama. Personally, I blame rampant insecurity among fantasy authors and readers alike. At some point everybody decided that fantasy had to be Serious Important Literature, and therefore needed politics and schemes and grim darkness so people with really good abs and fur swimsuits fighting giant snakes on prehistoric Mars just didn't cut it.

There are really only so many ways to describe stabbing an orc and quests against Dark Lords have been done to death. Feudal political dramas are interesting because they are, at the moment, still somewhat novel. My guess is that the trend towards grittier fantasy comes from the same impulse; if you stacked up all the fantasy novels with noble heroic protagonists winning and getting happy endings the tower would be big enough to start attracting adventuring parties. At least in grittier worlds you can pretend the conclusion is in doubt.

The good news is that if you don't like gritty fantasy stories, people will be sick of them in a decade or two and move back to something else like chivalric stories or maybe even non-european fantasy. The bad news is that you won't get a lot of traction calling people insecure because they're not interested in pulp power fantasies (don't get me wrong; I love both pulp and power fantasies intensely, they're just not really the domain of secure people).

[warty goblin]

There are really only so many ways to describe stabbing an orc and quests against Dark Lords have been done to death. Feudal political dramas are interesting because they are, at the moment, still somewhat novel. My guess is that the trend towards grittier fantasy comes from the same impulse; if you stacked up all the fantasy novels with noble heroic protagonists winning and getting happy endings the tower would be big enough to start attracting adventuring parties. At least in grittier worlds you can pretend the conclusion is in doubt.

Maybe. A whole lot of the feudal political dramas boil down to noble* heroes + dark lord + orcs** = stabbing in the end, they just have a lot of padding beforehand.

*Quite frequently literally noble as well. I get the feeling the protagonist who isn't heir to at least one castle is something of a rarity in this sort of thing.

**Or their functional, but human, equivalents.


The good news is that if you don't like gritty fantasy stories, people will be sick of them in a decade or two and move back to something else like chivalric stories or maybe even non-european fantasy. The bad news is that you won't get a lot of traction calling people insecure because they're not interested in pulp power fantasies (don't get me wrong; I love both pulp and power fantasies intensely, they're just not really the domain of secure people).
I rather do prefer my fantasy a bit old school in this regard and I'm pretty secure about this. I just pretend it's anything but fun escapist trash with the occasional interesting theme as a backdrop, and I don't think anybody else is either. When I want something of actual quality, I go for the classics, not the latest tome of a trilogy quartet cycle of faux realpolitik followed by the dark lord invading from the cardinal direction of your choice.

Dark lords for some reason never invade from the Northeast by East. If they ever did, they'd outflank everybody and be unstoppable.

Now my sample isn't particularly good here, so I could be drastically wrong, but I don't get the impression that back in the seventies and eighties people were insisting that fantasy was this important cultural thing up there with Hemingway, or (the more common version) that it's personal subjective taste so really it's all the same anyway.


Anyway, wasn't this the thread for pointless despair based on the state of fantasy consumers?

[Deepbluediver]

I rather do prefer my fantasy a bit old school in this regard and I'm pretty secure about this. I just pretend it's anything but fun escapist trash with the occasional interesting theme as a backdrop, and I don't think anybody else is either. When I want something of actual quality, I go for the classics, not the latest tome of a trilogy quartet cycle of faux realpolitik followed by the dark lord invading from the cardinal direction of your choice.

Maybe you should try the Crown of Stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_Stars_(series)) by Kate Elliott. Its a lot like Game of Thrones in style and tone, actually, and set in an alt-history Europe.
Except the elves are evil (kind of), the orcs are noble (sort of), and the pope is a women. It's got plenty of violence but it goes easier on the explicit sex scenes, and it's the only series that's ever done time travel in a way I found bearable.

Edit: Checking Wikipedia, I didn't realize it but the first volumes where published almost simultaneously as SoFaI (coincidence, perhaps?) Except the author managed to keep to a better schedule and knocked out all 7 books in under a decade.

[warty goblin]

Maybe you should try the Crown of Stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_Stars_(series)) by Kate Elliott. Its a lot like Game of Thrones in style and tone, actually, and set in an alt-history Europe.
Except the elves are evil (kind of), the orcs are noble (sort of), and the pope is a women. It's got plenty of violence but it goes easier on the explicit sex scenes, and it's the only series that's ever done time travel in a way I found bearable.


I have a dim recollection I tried the first one of these back in ancient days of 2006, and was fairly bored. Maybe it got better, but by halfway through pretty much nothing had happened, I didn't care about any of the characters, and the writing never cleared competent but dull.

I mostly like the sex in ASoIaF. Can't say I've read very many books where I haven't, really. Kinky, vanilla, man on woman, woman on man, woman on woman, man on man*, it's all good with me. So long as it's well written, and everybody's having fun, chances are I will too.

*Although there's precious little dude-banging in mainstream fantasy so far as I can tell. Pity, the hottest love scene I've read this year was man on man, and positively steamy.

[Deepbluediver]

I have a dim recollection I tried the first one of these back in ancient days of 2006, and was fairly bored. Maybe it got better, but by halfway through pretty much nothing had happened, I didn't care about any of the characters, and the writing never cleared competent but dull.

I mostly like the sex in ASoIaF. Can't say I've read very many books where I haven't, really. Kinky, vanilla, man on woman, woman on man, woman on woman, man on man*, it's all good with me. So long as it's well written, and everybody's having fun, chances are I will too.

*Although there's precious little dude-banging in mainstream fantasy so far as I can tell. Pity, the hottest love scene I've read this year was man on man, and positively steamy.

Alright, not your cup of tea then. I admit the first time I started reading it I got through maybe a book and a half before I put it down and didn't pick it back up again for at least a year. As I recall, the actions and conflict ramp up more the further the series goes, particularly once you start getting chapters written form the Eika's (savage humanoids) POV.

I didn't like the sex-scenes in ASoFaI; they seemed sort of out of place, but maybe that's just because I'm used to the "fade to black" variety. What
really turned me off the series though was how bleak and depressing everything has gotten. The main characters in crown of stars get put through hell, but they come out the other side alive, mostly, and the bad guys get their comeuppance in the end. When I heard that the ending for ASoFaI was going to be "bittersweet" I thought to myself "well whats the point of all this then?".


Frankly, I can agree with you that some modern fantasy series seem to fill up pages and pages with nothing substantial (Wheel of Time I'm looking at you). Maybe I should just go back to reading children's and teenager's fantasy. It's not to gory or dark, not overly sexualized, and mostly less than 400 pages.

[snoopy13a]

When I heard that the ending for ASoFaI was going to be "bittersweet" I thought to myself "well whats the point of all this then?".




I'm surprised it is going to be bittersweet and not just bitter :smalltongue:

Seriously though, I think The Lord of the Rings' ending is bittersweet. So, I suppose that gives some context.

[Selrahc]

When I heard that the ending for ASoFaI was going to be "bittersweet" I thought to myself "well whats the point of all this then?"

How could it possibly not be bittersweet? Say Jon and Daenarys take the Iron Throne, having just defeated the invasion of White Walkers with Dragonfire. Ned and Cat and Robb are still dead. The land is ravaged by warfare. Daenarys is still barren from that blood magic. The scars that have been inflicted thus far in the series will make any potential ending bittersweet. The best result we could get would be a hopeful future.

[warty goblin]

Alright, not your cup of tea then. I admit the first time I started reading it I got through maybe a book and a half before I put it down and didn't pick it back up again for at least a year. As I recall, the actions and conflict ramp up more the further the series goes, particularly once you start getting chapters written form the Eika's (savage humanoids) POV.

I tend to rule that any series which takes multiple four hundred plus page books to get good is not, in point of fact, good. It may contain later good books, but perhaps the plot could have been spiced up or edited down so it didn't have the combined page count of Herodotus and Thucydides before anything actually happened.

Unfortunately the usual trajectory for a series is to start good, then degenerate over the course of multiple volumes, which usually suckers me into reading some sub-par crap before realizing this one's a few volumes past the end of the bookshelf. The ones that start with the lamer titles are really doing me a favor.


I didn't like the sex-scenes in ASoFaI; they seemed sort of out of place, but maybe that's just because I'm used to the "fade to black" variety.
I'm fine with fade-to-black as well; it's not like I have some 'nipples must be this perky to read' measuring stick or anything. But I've got no complaint if the author doesn't fade out every time the pants hit the floor.

What
really turned me off the series though was how bleak and depressing everything has gotten. The main characters in crown of stars get put through hell, but they come out the other side alive, mostly, and the bad guys get their comeuppance in the end. When I heard that the ending for ASoFaI was going to be "bittersweet" I thought to myself "well whats the point of all this then?".
Do yourself a favor, and never read Martin's Meathouse Man. It makes ASoIaF look like kittens playing with puppies in the sunshine while butterflies and bumblebees gambol among the pollen heavy blossoms. Don't get me wrong, it's a hell of a good story, just one that contains about 3000% of the recommended daily intake of bleakness.

Also, really, really creepy sex scenes; the sort that doesn't so much make your skin crawl as sprint rapidly in the opposite direction.


Zombies in space aside, I rather like my endings bittersweet. I find a bit of misery and acknowledgement of loss makes things much more emotionally interesting. That bit of unresolved bitterness is what drags my mind back into the story and makes me think back on it with interest.


Frankly, I can agree with you that some modern fantasy series seem to fill up pages and pages with nothing substantial (Wheel of Time I'm looking at you). Maybe I should just go back to reading children's and teenager's fantasy. It's not to gory or dark, not overly sexualized, and mostly less than 400 pages.

I find adolescent fantasy is, or at least was, often pretty creative stuff too. Maybe it's something about their shorter length, or that they tend to be a bit more focused on characters - and since the characters tend to be young they actually change over the course of the narrative - but I've reread a couple books and series I used to really love as a young teen in the last couple years. They hold up remarkably well. They don't leave me emotionally blitzed and pondering the human condition or anything, but there are certainly worse ways to kill ten minutes before sleep than early Redwall or Tamora Pierce.

I don't read much contemporary adolescent stuff. It looks like lots of teen werewolf/vampire/witch/whatever urban fantasy romance. I don't really get on well with urban romance as a rule, and one of the immense joys of not being fifteen is freedom from romances involving fifteen year olds. There's probably lots of really good stuff out there, but I don't feel like doing the literary triage necessary to find it, particularly since I don't know the genre as well and can't readily spot the disasters.

For more adult targeted fantasy, I don't really start to worry about length and the failures of editing until the series has past the trilogy mark. Twelve hundred to two thousand pages should be enough for most stories, anything past that I'll suspect of milking it absent evidence to the contrary. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, the series having been planned as having N books from book 1, significant testimony that the stuff from book books 2 through N - 1 actually matter in book N, or a publication chronology that is different from the narrative chronology. This assures me that I can read the original run, and it should probably stand on its own, and skip the later additions if necessary.

Are the later editions in a case like that ever actually necessary? I'm having a hard time thinking of any cases where the author came back like a decade later to 'fill in some holes' where doing so improved the series.

[Deepbluediver]

I tend to rule that any series which takes multiple four hundred plus page books to get good is not, in point of fact, good. It may contain later good books, but perhaps the plot could have been spiced up or edited down so it didn't have the combined page count of Herodotus and Thucydides before anything actually happened. I didn't say nothing important in the first book or so, or that I didn't eventualy enjoy it, just that the conflict spread and more wars broke out as the series went further along.

There was some serious world-building and character introduction that probably could have been tightened up a bit, most of it was eventually very important (and it's still not on the scale of FaI- see 7 books in 9 years).


Unfortunately the usual trajectory for a series is to start good, then degenerate over the course of multiple volumes, which usually suckers me into reading some sub-par crap before realizing this one's a few volumes past the end of the bookshelf. The ones that start with the lamer titles are really doing me a favor.

Just out of curiosity, what are some examples of that that you've encountered?

I never got around to reading the 7th Harry Potter book, and I gave up halfway through LotR, but for very different reasons.


Do yourself a favor, and never read Martin's Meathouse Man. It makes ASoIaF look like kittens playing with puppies in the sunshine while butterflies and bumblebees gambol among the pollen heavy blossoms. Don't get me wrong, it's a hell of a good story, just one that contains about 3000% of the recommended daily intake of bleakness.

Also, really, really creepy sex scenes; the sort that doesn't so much make your skin crawl as sprint rapidly in the opposite direction.

I'm not even sure I'm going to finish aSoFaI; what will most likely happen is I'll wait until they're all published, then go read the plot-summary on wikipedia so I can find out what happens without having to actually sit through it.

I did the same thing with the cliff-notes for Atlas Shrugged.


Zombies in space aside, I rather like my endings bittersweet. I find a bit of misery and acknowledgement of loss makes things much more emotionally interesting. That bit of unresolved bitterness is what drags my mind back into the story and makes me think back on it with interest.

It can have it's place, and I don't need a sappy puppies-and-rainbows tacked on to every story. For example, I thought the ending of the the Dark Knight Rises was a little sacharine, given the tone up to that point.

With FaI, I still wanted to know what happens in the end, but getting through the books had become a chore. It was, to paraphrase Yahtzee, like digging through wet toilet paper to find the small chocolate candies inside. And hearing the ending was going to be bittersweet was like hearing the my prize at the center of that mess was a candy-covered onion (http://www.penturners.org/forum/attachments/f18/82014d1348845765-practical-joke-i-am-going-play-candy_onions.jpeg).


I find adolescent fantasy is, or at least was, often pretty creative stuff too. Maybe it's something about their shorter length, or that they tend to be a bit more focused on characters - and since the characters tend to be young they actually change over the course of the narrative - but I've reread a couple books and series I used to really love as a young teen in the last couple years. They hold up remarkably well. They don't leave me emotionally blitzed and pondering the human condition or anything, but there are certainly worse ways to kill ten minutes before sleep than early Redwall or Tamora Pierce.

If you haven't read them, Diane Duane's Young Wizard series and Rick Riordan's Percy Jackson & the Olympians books are pretty good and in a similar vein, I think. They both have the "fantasy set in the modern age, with highschoolers" & "world behind the veil" thing going on.

The first has magic-is-the-language-of-the-universe system, and the "wizards" are basically intergalactic magitek support (better than it sounds, especially once aliens start showing up). And the second has all of the main characters being demigods, with Zues and his kin as their immortal parents. And all the greek gods are still alive and live in New York, atopt the empire state building. :smallbiggrin:


I don't read much contemporary adolescent stuff. It looks like lots of teen werewolf/vampire/witch/whatever urban fantasy romance. I don't really get on well with urban romance as a rule, and one of the immense joys of not being fifteen is freedom from romances involving fifteen year olds. There's probably lots of really good stuff out there, but I don't feel like doing the literary triage necessary to find it, particularly since I don't know the genre as well and can't readily spot the disasters.

Yeah, that can be tough. When I was in highschool though I was a very equal-opportunity reader, and I tried one book called Blood and Chocolate. (they made a movie out of it too, but the movie was terrible in ways I don't even want to get into)

I liked it because it seemed like mostly coming-of-age-and-identity-with-werewolves, and the romance was not the dominant factor (the movie screwed both up NO NOT GOING THERE BAD DBD /wristslap).
But that sort of thing is highly subjective. If you want to try it though, its a short standalone book with no sequels, so you could probably plow through the whole thing in less than a few hours.
And whatever you do, DON'T WATCH THE MOVIE.


Are the later editions in a case like that ever actually necessary? I'm having a hard time thinking of any cases where the author came back like a decade later to 'fill in some holes' where doing so improved the series.

I think it's doubtful, certainly. I didn't need to know that Dumbledore was gay, really. It added nothing to the story in my mind. It didn't detract either, it was just sort of pointless, IMO. Like some one walking up to me and going "I woke up today!"

And I'm thinking, "Alright, what response are you looking for here?"

[Kitten Champion]

I've enjoyed Garth Nix's work more than most adult fantasy epics. Keys to the Kingdom was fascinating in concept and execution. Neil Gaiman's The Graveyard Book is high in my esteem, I wish more young adult fiction was as gracefully written. Diana Wynn Jones (may she rest in peace) is perhaps my favourite writer of all time, I don't care which novel or short story of hers you may mention, I'll enjoy it. There's also Philip Pullman, who's His Dark Materials series is fundamentally brilliant.

The best part of all of these, they didn't try to copy Tolkien, both in tropes and format - nor are they saccharine, histrionic, or condensing.

[warty goblin]

I didn't say nothing important in the first book or so, or that I didn't eventualy enjoy it, just that the conflict spread and more wars broke out as the series went further along.

There was some serious world-building and character introduction that probably could have been tightened up a bit, most of it was eventually very important (and it's still not on the scale of FaI- see 7 books in 9 years).

Generally if somebody says they put down a book for a long time, it strikes me as quite possibly an issue with the work. Maybe because when I've done that, I've quite often regretted it. I recall finding out that the second half of Mistborn was exactly as tedious as the first when I made the mistake of picking it back up. At least that series blew from book 1 though, so I could safely write it off with a minimum of investment.


And I'm deeply suspicious of any book which mostly just does worldbuilding. That way the darkside lies.


Just out of curiosity, what are some examples of that that you've encountered?
There's the obvious case of The Sword of Truth. Wizard's First Rule isn't actually a bad book, but holy cow does that series fill up the trunk with anvils and drive off a cliff in a hurry.

I really enjoyed the first two books of Luis McMaster Bujold's The Sharing Knife series, found the third mildly entertaining, and burned out halfway through the fourth. The first two were great fun, since they gave equal weight to the three pillars of saving the world, steaming hot romance, and familial drama. Besides which, the central plot of eighteen year old girl runs away from home and gets caught up in whirlwind romance with Aragorn is a lot of fun - I mean who hasn't had that fantasy? But the third and what I read of the fourth dropped everything but the familial drama, which made them feel like one-legged stools. Particularly since it wasn't even the main character's families having the drama.

Weiss and Hickman's Sovereign Stone trilogy starts out really strong; I'd say Well of Darkness is one quite possibly the best thing they've done. The second and third books don't just indulge in every possible fantasy cliche, they don't even have fun doing it. The first couple Dragonlance trilogies are cliche as hell, but goddamn do they have fun. Fortunately the first book stands on its own very well, as a sympathetic and melancholy sort of origin story for a dark lord.

The first book of C. S. Friedman's Magister trilogy is OK. I think I gave it up in the second book when I realized everything vaguely interesting she had set up was turning into Bad Dudes invade from the North with a side of pointless Moral Ambiguity! The bad kind of moral ambiguity, where instead of interesting characters with legitimate, believable conflicts, it's a case of terrible people fighting terrible people. Instead of feeling sad and conflicted when a character died, I had a vague hope everybody would end up feeding worms by the end. Not enough to actually read the damn things though. (And I'm not even touching the gender politics, which were all that is failure.)

For the case of gender being done well in fantasy, I enjoyed Sarah Micklem's Firethorn immensely. I picked it up as a light read, and was pretty well blind-sided when it proved to be anything but. And talk about different! Pity the sequel lost pretty much all sense of narrative direction or purpose.

Not fantasy, but Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy declines in quality markedly over its run. The first book is one of the best pieces of hard science fiction I've read. The second has a bunch of laggy bits, but some really cool payoffs, and again I burned out on the third.

While I never found it reached the level of actually unreadable or bad, I think the Harry Potter books had some serious drop offs in quality. You could run a chainsaw lengthwise through each of books 4 - 7 and probably not remove anything of particular importance, although Rowling at least writes with enough character to keep things amusing for the most part. Books 1 -3 are pretty tightly put together, and barring the occasional first-book oddity in #1, fairly excellent bits of young adult lit.

Again in the still readable category, A Song of Ice and Fire has been heading downhill. A Game of Thrones is a really sharp piece of work, but they just start to feel long and sort of out of control after maybe the third. Admittedly this may be because I read them over such a long period I've forgotten loads of stuff from the earlier books, which makes it harder to follow the later volumes. I'll see if this stands up after my planned late summer re-read of the entire thing.



I'm not even sure I'm going to finish aSoFaI; what will most likely happen is I'll wait until they're all published, then go read the plot-summary on wikipedia so I can find out what happens without having to actually sit through it.
I'm in this one for the long haul. At this I've been waiting for the next book for about half my life, so there's no way I'll call it in until the damn thing's done.


I did the same thing with the cliff-notes for Atlas Shrugged.
I suffered through about seven books of the Sword of Truth. Now the closest I'll come to objectivist literature is the length of a standard propane torch.


It can have it's place, and I don't need a sappy puppies-and-rainbows tacked on to every story. For example, I thought the ending of the the Dark Knight Rises was a little sacharine, given the tone up to that point.

Personally I really enjoy a good downer of an ending. If I can't read it out loud to myself without crying like a little kid who's ice cream fell off the cone, it's a sure sign I'm enjoying the hell out of it.


If you haven't read them, Diane Duane's Young Wizard series and Rick Riordan's Percy Jackson & the Olympians books are pretty good and in a similar vein, I think. They both have the "fantasy set in the modern age, with highschoolers" & "world behind the veil" thing going on.

I tried the Young Wizards back in my mispent youth, and don't remember it doing anything in particular for me.


I liked it because it seemed like mostly coming-of-age-and-identity-with-werewolves, and the romance was not the dominant factor (the movie screwed both up NO NOT GOING THERE BAD DBD /wristslap).
But that sort of thing is highly subjective. If you want to try it though, its a short standalone book with no sequels, so you could probably plow through the whole thing in less than a few hours.
And whatever you do, DON'T WATCH THE MOVIE.
Stand-alone is music unto mine ears. I'll see if the used book store down the way has a copy next time I'm there.

[Deepbluediver]

I've enjoyed Garth Nix's work more than most adult fantasy epics.

I should read more of Garth Nix's works. I really loved what he did with necromancy in the Abhorsen books.


Generally if somebody says they put down a book for a long time, it strikes me as quite possibly an issue with the work. Maybe because when I've done that, I've quite often regretted it. I recall finding out that the second half of Mistborn was exactly as tedious as the first when I made the mistake of picking it back up. At least that series blew from book 1 though, so I could safely write it off with a minimum of investment.

Sometimes you just have to be a little older, or even simply be in a different frame of mind.

When I read the first book for A series of Unfortunate Events, I figured out the plot twist halfway through, and then didn't finish the book for two years. At which point I read through all of them.


And I'm deeply suspicious of any book which mostly just does worldbuilding. That way the darkside lies.

Like I said, I enjoyed it and I thought it felt similar to FaI. If you didn't that's fine; there's no right answer to literature any more than there is a correct taste in ice cream.


I'm in this one for the long haul. At this I've been waiting for the next book for about half my life, so there's no way I'll call it in until the damn thing's done.

Heh, you and the people who read Wheel of Time. I only picked up FaI after the fourth book was out, and WoT after the 12th. I'm not sure I could bare waiting 2 decades for a story to conclude.


I tried the Young Wizards back in my mispent youth, and don't remember it doing anything in particular for me.

/shrug
You mentioned Tamora Pierce, and I felt that Diane Duane's writing had a similar feel to it.

If you want to try again, but don't like the idea of getting into a series, there is a stand-alone novel entitled The Book of Night with Moon. It's set in the same universe, except the main wizard characters are cats instead of people.



There's also Philip Pullman, who's His Dark Materials series is fundamentally brilliant.

To try and get back on topic of complaining about the state of the world- all the controversy that gets raised when some one publishes a book about hot-button topics, or even just stuff people take weird offense to.

For example, the first time I read The Golden Compass, all the anti-church bias just went completely over my head. But it apparently was a big deal when someone decided to make it into a movie. By the same token, I recall hearing that at one point the producers where trying to take the religious symbolism out of the Narnia movies.
And then there's the complaint that Harry Potter glorifies witchcraft (which I guess is sorta true, but also absolutely bonkers).

90% of this stuff most kids won't realize, and wouldn't care about even if they did. I won't say that adults shouldn't watch or read things written for children or teenagers (I still watch cartoons, I don't deny it) but they really shouldn't be allowed to COMPLAIN about it.

[snoopy13a]

Unfortunately the usual trajectory for a series is to start good, then degenerate over the course of multiple volumes, which usually suckers me into reading some sub-par crap before realizing this one's a few volumes past the end of the bookshelf. The ones that start with the lamer titles are really doing me a favor.


The first book is probably the one the author spent the most time on. Chances are it took a few years to complete and possibly another few years for a publisher to to accept it. Likely it had been self-edited many times (editing is one of the secrets of good writing*) and has been looked over by friends and associates in amateur writing groups. That's not even counting the professional editing by the publisher.

On the other hand, the second book often comes out a year or so afterwards. Perhaps the author has an general outline worked out, but I can't see writing the second book before the first is published. After all, what if a publisher accepts your manuscript on condition of significant changes? I'd think most, if not all, first-time authors would make those changes.

So, I think that a first novel in a series is a labor of many years and many edits. On the other hand, the following novels are probably written with more haste.

* If any of you are still in college, then complete a rough draft of any paper assignment as soon as possible. Then take two days or so off and look over your paper with fresh eyes. You'll find many areas that are "clunky" or have weak arguments that can be cleaned up. The more times you can edit, the better a paper will be. Doing it the night before can really hamper your grades.

[warty goblin]

The first book is probably the one the author spent the most time on. Chances are it took a few years to complete and possibly another few years for a publisher to to accept it. Likely it had been self-edited many times (editing is one of the secrets of good writing*) and has been looked over by friends and associates in amateur writing groups. That's not even counting the professional editing by the publisher.

On the other hand, the second book often comes out a year or so afterwards. Perhaps the author has an general outline worked out, but I can't see writing the second book before the first is published. After all, what if a publisher accepts your manuscript on condition of significant changes? I'd think most, if not all, first-time authors would make those changes.

So, I think that a first novel in a series is a labor of many years and many edits. On the other hand, the following novels are probably written with more haste.

Ayup, this is very true. One also often gets the sense that the author only really had the notion for one book. The second and so on just aren't based on as strong of an idea. The evil is vanquished, the people who are going to be married and crowned are married and crowned, the noble sacrifices have wreaths on their marble tombs, and the comic relief character is off doing whatever they did before, but a bit wiser for their experiences. It's a good place to end the story.

Queue sequel, and either the exact same evil is rising again, or an even older and eviler evil has awoken. Ever notice how evil in fantasy is like clam juice? The older it is, the worse?

So inevitably the married people have a fight, we get a new noble sacrifice character, and the comic relief character gets drawn back into the whole business. It is, in short, a retread of book one, except whatever sparks of originality the author brought to the table are now being reused. Either that or it's a new generation of heroes, which close inspection reveals is actually the previous generation with the serial numbers filed down and a splash of new paint.


* If any of you are still in college, then complete a rough draft of any paper assignment as soon as possible. Then take two days or so off and look over your paper with fresh eyes. You'll find many areas that are "clunky" or have weak arguments that can be cleaned up. The more times you can edit, the better a paper will be. Doing it the night before can really hamper your grades.
I never wrote this way in college. I pretty much hammered out a final draft in one go as I worked, and added the intro and conclusion once the body was done. Never seemed to harm my grades any either; I wrote good papers in college. I think the only things I wrote that didn't get As were the first two papers, and the last one. Senioritis is a hell of a drug.

[Anteros]

According to that study, 57% of adult Americans in 2003 could perform "moderately challenging literary activities." Sure, perhaps only 13% or so can fully parse Melville or Joyce, but most literature is approachable by the majority of Americans. And let's face it, A Song of Ice of Fire isn't exactly Moby ****.

It's pretty funny given the argument that he's making that he misread the information in his own graph.

[Kitten Champion]

To try and get back on topic of complaining about the state of the world- all the controversy that gets raised when some one publishes a book about hot-button topics, or even just stuff people take weird offense to.

For example, the first time I read The Golden Compass, all the anti-church bias just went completely over my head. But it apparently was a big deal when someone decided to make it into a movie. By the same token, I recall hearing that at one point the producers where trying to take the religious symbolism out of the Narnia movies.
And then there's the complaint that Harry Potter glorifies witchcraft (which I guess is sorta true, but also absolutely bonkers).

90% of this stuff most kids won't realize, and wouldn't care about even if they did. I won't say that adults shouldn't watch or read things written for children or teenagers (I still watch cartoons, I don't deny it) but they really shouldn't be allowed to COMPLAIN about it.

I think people had a point with the Pullman books, it's as subtly religious as C.S Lewis' works were in there own way. There was no making that movie and not upsetting folks, so I could have accepted their compromise with the whole ambiguous Authority antagonists having understood the themes myself, but they left out the whole dramatic ending. For a series that's not going to continue, I'm disappointed that I'll never see that moment with Lyra walking into the sky. That scene wasn't something you could cut out, as far as I'm concerned, and if you aren't willing to show it then why bother in the first place? This isn't a matter of religious bigotry or lack thereof, it's an important plot point that defines the conflict and moral ambiguity of the setting.

The Harry Potter kerfuffle just felt like vocal groups getting attention using a reasonably popular fantasy series to drum up controversy, it reminded me of friend's stories about how playing D&D carried a Satan-worshipping stigma back in the day. I'm sure if you're convoluted enough in your reasoning you can make all fantasy somewhat blasphemous including Lewis and Tolkien. Actually, the moral crusaders of the world successfully banned the Harry Potter books in my school district's classrooms and libraries, which is why I started reading them. This was an unpleasant period of time where I was to learn creation myths in science class. I was not a happy camper. Oddly enough, Pullman's books were never discussed, I got them out of the school library that same year.

As to the broader topic, about not having enough time to read something when clearly you have enough time to watch the television adaptation. I can actually understand that. I felt it reading Lord of the Rings shortly after seeing the Followship. I'm actually a relatively fast reader, I'm also pretty avid. I just got... so bored with the first book. It felt like a waste of time because I'd seen most of what was being described, with a lot more boring stuff thrown in and descriptions themselves being generally underwhelming. LotR is tedious compared to the movies. I mean, I understand why now, but then I couldn't help but feel like I want to get back to the plot, and needed something more dynamic to happen. I went back a few years later, when I was more patient and less sidetracked by the movie's aura.

I guess that's different than never having tried, but still, if you generally know all the characters and important plot points (I haven't actually watched Game of Thrones, as I do not enjoy the books in the least after reading four of the novels, but I've heard it's pretty faithful to the source material) you'll probably find it fairly laborious getting through all these to find out what happens next. It doesn't work quite the same way from a person who loves a book already and wants to see actors play it out, compared to those who love the acting, music, sets, costumes, etc. and is brought to reading about their past exploits. Some people enjoy that, diving into the source material, others don't.

[Flickerdart]

I read the Sword of Truth books when I was 13-14ish. I remember having to stop several times per book and try to trace the train of thought of the "protagonists" as they justified slaughtering enemy noncombatants as just and glorious, for instance, because I didn't yet know what Objectivism was and thought it was intended to actually make sense somehow.

[SuperPanda]

I can't speak to the studies that people aren't literate, the world has moved on and people's heads only store so much stuff (and as a species we are incredibly good at filling it up with non-sense as it is). I can't speak to the "not having time to read" idea. I've been working on an MA, reading for classes, reading for fun, watching TV, playing an MMO at times, and working part time.

For me personally I've not gotten around to reading aSoFaI mostly because I don't like Martin's prose (though I love his naritive). The show's production staff have put together a brillaint cast and an amazing team of writers, actors, set and costume designers, composers, editors. There've been only a few points in the show where I felt they made a wrong choice for the story the show is telling (which is an adaption of but not the same story as the ones the books tell).

I tried reading part of book 2 (my e-reader rejected my copy of book 1 :/). I got about half way through before I realized that I enjoyed the show a great deal more than the book. The show's characters had nuance, and the women (Cersei, Sansa, Arya, and more but those three especially) are just plain better on the show (for me). Though this is completely personal preference and I decided that I wanted to enjoy the reveals on the show before I got around to the books. I'd certainly never pretend it was because I don't have time.

[Jerthanis]

Not amongst the main characters, anyway. There are a few secondary types that seem quite fond of torture.

I keep forgetting about the Iron Islanders, oh, and Gregor Clegane... oh yeah, and Roose Bolton and Vargo Hoat (or whatever his name is)

Okay, nevermind, this book series is full to bursting with "evil for the sake of it", they're just not always super important characters.

[Anteros]

I think a lot of the main characters were pretty easily identifiable as evil as well. It's been a long time since I've read...so forgive any mistakes with the names, but...

Basically the entire Lannister family except for Tyrion (although Jaime is turning it around.)
Gregor, Momma Stark, Drogo, little finger, all of the Iron whatever they're called...

Basically the only family who isn't completely evil for evil's sake is the Starks. That's why they're viewed as the good guys. It's not only because they're the protagonists, but also by default. I know a lot of the characters do have motivations for their actions...but having motivation does not mean you aren't evil. House Baratheon might also fall under the non evil grouping, as well as some of the minor characters but I never really considered any of them central to the story.

[Kato]

I think a lot of the main characters were pretty easily identifiable as evil as well. It's been a long time since I've read...so forgive any mistakes with the names, but...


There is a difference between being "evil for evil's sake" and just being "selfish and ruthless". Everything even the worst Lannister does is to further their own goals, mostly to gain power, everything Drogo does - while Dothraki are a kind of chaotic evil-ish people - is just part of their culture and how they live. etc

Gregor, Ramsay, those are probably the two people where I'd say they are evil for evil's sake, maybe a few of the Mummers. About every other character has a decent motivation for any evil they do.

[Deepbluediver]

I keep forgetting about the Iron Islanders, oh, and Gregor Clegane... oh yeah, and Roose Bolton and Vargo Hoat (or whatever his name is)

Okay, nevermind, this book series is full to bursting with "evil for the sake of it", they're just not always super important characters.

I think I got your point initially; the major plot-drivers are not chaotic-destructo-evil. Though there IS some supernatural force assaulting the north, most of the HUMANS have believable motivations.

And I did describe the setting as "Grey, Black, and darker Black" in terms of morality.

[warty goblin]

Gregor, Ramsay, those are probably the two people where I'd say they are evil for evil's sake, maybe a few of the Mummers. About every other character has a decent motivation for any evil they do.
I'm not really sure why there's a moral line between Gregor killing, pillaging and burning his way through the Riverlands, and Tywin ordering Gregor to kill, pillage and burn his way through the Riverlands. It's not like Tywin doesn't know that's what he'll do, since Gregor's penchant for brutality is the entire reason Tywin employs him.

[TheSummoner]

I'm not really sure why there's a moral line between Gregor killing, pillaging and burning his way through the Riverlands, and Tywin ordering Gregor to kill, pillage and burn his way through the Riverlands. It's not like Tywin doesn't know that's what he'll do, since Gregor's penchant for brutality is the entire reason Tywin employs him.

Tywin does it because he wants to win the war and sending Gregor to terrorize his enemies furthers that goal.

Gregor does it because Tywin tells him to and because Gregor enjoys it.

Maybe it's not a moral line, but it a line between evil and evil for the sake of evil.

[Anteros]

There is a difference between being "evil for evil's sake" and just being "selfish and ruthless". Everything even the worst Lannister does is to further their own goals, mostly to gain power, everything Drogo does - while Dothraki are a kind of chaotic evil-ish people - is just part of their culture and how they live. etc

Gregor, Ramsay, those are probably the two people where I'd say they are evil for evil's sake, maybe a few of the Mummers. About every other character has a decent motivation for any evil they do.

The difference, if there really is one is entirely academic. Your victims don't care about your motivations, they only care about the suffering you inflict. This line of logic is basically saying "it's better to murder someone out of greed than it is to murder them for fun." Which is patently absurd to anyone with an objective viewpoint. (like the reader)

[Water_Bear]

The difference, if there really is one is entirely academic. Your victims don't care about your motivations, they only care about the suffering you inflict. This line of logic is basically saying "it's better to murder someone out of greed than it is to murder them for fun." Which is patently absurd to anyone with an objective viewpoint. (like the reader)

Not better morally, but more interesting from the reader's perspective. Giving the "villains" an actual motivation means that it's easier to sympathize with them and makes the world seem more real.

[Anteros]

Not better morally, but more interesting from the reader's perspective. Giving the "villains" an actual motivation means that it's easier to sympathize with them and makes the world seem more real.

That's true...but the original point someone was arguing was that the Starks are the bad guys...when in reality they're almost the only ones who aren't cartoon villain evil.

That's not to say that they aren't Lawful Stupid of course.

[warty goblin]

That's true...but the original point someone was arguing was that the Starks are the bad guys...when in reality they're almost the only ones who aren't cartoon villain evil.

That's not to say that they aren't Lawful Stupid of course.

Really I wouldn't say they're particularly more or less evil* than the Lannisters. Both were quite willing to start massive, bloody wars for entirely personal agendas. I find the Stark objectives less odious than the Lannisters, but given the harm both caused, I don't think good intentions really cut it as an excuse anymore.


*This is probably the wrong word to use here. Evil in reference to fantasy to me usually denotes some degree of absoluteness in character. Tossing people in volcanos to awaken omnicidal demons sort of stuff. ASoIaF does not really operate on that sort of continuum.

[Anteros]

Really I wouldn't say they're particularly more or less evil* than the Lannisters. Both were quite willing to start massive, bloody wars for entirely personal agendas. I find the Stark objectives less odious than the Lannisters, but given the harm both caused, I don't think good intentions really cut it as an excuse anymore.


*This is probably the wrong word to use here. Evil in reference to fantasy to me usually denotes some degree of absoluteness in character. Tossing people in volcanos to awaken omnicidal demons sort of stuff. ASoIaF does not really operate on that sort of continuum.

I disagree. Intentions are literally the only thing that separates good from evil. There's a world of difference between trying to do the right thing, but causing disaster and causing disaster out of greed. One of them makes you evil, one of them makes you stupid.

[Kato]

That's true...but the original point someone was arguing was that the Starks are the bad guys...when in reality they're almost the only ones who aren't cartoon villain evil.

Not saying one is less evil (while there certainly are alot of grey shades in ASOIAF) but there is still a great difference between evil acts not only on the level of evil but also based on the motivation behind it. If I burn down a village to save a kingdom it is entirely different from burning down a village to hear the screams of the villagers.


I disagree. Intentions are literally the only thing that separates good from evil.

That's just wrong. While intentions matter, there are a lot of differences between good and evil acts. Like the observers point of view...

[Anteros]

Not saying one is less evil (while there certainly are alot of grey shades in ASOIAF) but there is still a great difference between evil acts not only on the level of evil but also based on the motivation behind it. If I burn down a village to save a kingdom it is entirely different from burning down a village to hear the screams of the villagers.



That's just wrong. While intentions matter, there are a lot of differences between good and evil acts. Like the observers point of view...

You're contradicting yourself. I understand what you meant though. I disagree with you, but I doubt arguing subjective vs objective definitions of the word evil will be productive.

[Jerthanis]

Basically the only family who isn't completely evil for evil's sake is the Starks. That's why they're viewed as the good guys. It's not only because they're the protagonists, but also by default. I know a lot of the characters do have motivations for their actions...but having motivation does not mean you aren't evil. House Baratheon might also fall under the non evil grouping, as well as some of the minor characters but I never really considered any of them central to the story.

I see the Starks as evil for the sake of honor, and I see most of the Lannisters as evil out of love or pragmatism. The Starks think they're good people, the Lannisters know they're doing things which are wrong and evil, and would not behave so if the situation didn't benefit them for acting in this way. Jaime wouldn't throw a child out a window just because he felt like it... but he WOULD if it was required to save his own life and the life of the woman he loves. I can respect that. Ned, meanwhile, would throw a child out a window (or for instance, let people know they're the products of incest, knowing it would put their lives in danger such that he encouraged Cersei to flee the country with them before the ravens arrive) if the rules of an unjust society required that of him.

In my estimation, neither is really significantly worse... but the Starks by seeing themselves as justified, by seeing themselves as in the right as they're doing these things, are the more contemptable.

And by the way, the Baratheons are all evil too... Robert most of all. Joffrey is who he is because he's emulating his father figure. Robert is probably the second worst character in the books, after Crastor.

[Anteros]

I highly doubt a situation exists where Ned would throw a child from a window to preserve his own honor. If he did do such a thing, then yes I would call him evil. That never happened though.

There were deeper reasons for him wanting to expose the incest than "the law says so". Like wanting to avoid an unlawful, and terrible despotic rule by an evil child.

[Deepbluediver]

And by the way, the Baratheons are all evil too... Robert most of all.

How so?


Joffrey is who he is because he's emulating his father figure. Robert is probably the second worst character in the books, after Crastor.

But his real father is Jaime, who seems to be getting better as the books go on, instead of worse.

Also, I realize that many of the Starks are big on honor, but I thought Cait Stark was more the pragmatic type. Didn't she put a hit out on one of the Lannisters before they whole war even got started, because she thought HE was after her children? That seems pretty much like evil for the sake of love to me.

In fact, I thought it was kind of interesting that Cait and Cerscie seemed to be very similar in that both where willing to do whatever it took to protect their respective sons.

(please pardon any spelling or other mistakes, it's been a while since I read the books)

[snoopy13a]

I see the Starks as evil for the sake of honor, and I see most of the Lannisters as evil out of love or pragmatism. The Starks think they're good people, the Lannisters know they're doing things which are wrong and evil, and would not behave so if the situation didn't benefit them for acting in this way. Jaime wouldn't throw a child out a window just because he felt like it... but he WOULD if it was required to save his own life and the life of the woman he loves. I can respect that. Ned, meanwhile, would throw a child out a window (or for instance, let people know they're the products of incest, knowing it would put their lives in danger such that he encouraged Cersei to flee the country with them before the ravens arrive) if the rules of an unjust society required that of him.

In my estimation, neither is really significantly worse... but the Starks by seeing themselves as justified, by seeing themselves as in the right as they're doing these things, are the more contemptable.

And by the way, the Baratheons are all evil too... Robert most of all. Joffrey is who he is because he's emulating his father figure. Robert is probably the second worst character in the books, after Crastor.

Yes, Shireen, Tommen, and Myrcella are all evil incarnate. :smalltongue:

I think Edmure Tully is stupid good, by the way.

[warty goblin]

Not saying one is less evil (while there certainly are alot of grey shades in ASOIAF) but there is still a great difference between evil acts not only on the level of evil but also based on the motivation behind it. If I burn down a village to save a kingdom it is entirely different from burning down a village to hear the screams of the villagers.

A difference I'm sure the villagers just line up to appreciate.

The interplay between intentions and actions is not tremendously simple. Bad intentions are a fairly safe guarantor of bad action if carried out. Good intentions however offer no such guarantee of good action or outcome. A person may do wrong through wanting to do good. This in no way lessens the harm done by their actions; though it may warrant clemency when it comes to judging them. But burning a village does not mystically become good just because the person had a noble purpose for doing so. The homes are just as destroyed, the sons, daughters, wives, husbands, fathers and mothers are just as dead, and the harm is just as real.

[Selrahc]

In my estimation, neither is really significantly worse...

Well, you're wrong. Jaime threw a kid out of a window to save himself. Ned warned Cersei that he was going to tell his friend about her crime, not to save himself but specifically so that she could save her children... and despite thinking that the Lannisters attempted to have his son killed. The intended beneficiaries of Jaime's action was Jaime and Cersei. The intended beneficiary of Ned's was Cersei and her children.

One really is significantly worse.

If Ned hadn't warned Cersei, then you could maybe make an argument. But he did, so you're just talking gibberish. I realize that you're playing devils advocate here, but a bit of internal consistency would be good.

[Mordar]

A difference I'm sure the villagers just line up to appreciate.

The interplay between intentions and actions is not tremendously simple. Bad intentions are a fairly safe guarantor of bad action if carried out. Good intentions however offer no such guarantee of good action or outcome. A person may do wrong through wanting to do good. This in no way lessens the harm done by their actions; though it may warrant clemency when it comes to judging them. But burning a village does not mystically become good just because the person had a noble purpose for doing so. The homes are just as destroyed, the sons, daughters, wives, husbands, fathers and mothers are just as dead, and the harm is just as real.

While you are right about the harm inflicted not changing, the nature of the act must, in my opinion, be judged by the situation and consequences. Pushing me to the sidewalk out of spite and walking away causes the same amount of harm as pushing me to the sidewalk out of the path of an oncoming bus. In both cases, harm was done to me, so both must be considered evil? Sure, I might appreciate that you saved me and be willing to take that harm every time (over the harm of the bus)...but what if I was intentionally saved from a harm I wasn't aware of even after the fact? Same guy pushes me, and I am knocked cold...the bus passes by and no witnesses report to me what happened. I guess my savior just became an evil bully.

I think that ascribing good/evil descriptors to an action based on the selective opinion of the person/people most directly impacted is really kind of off base.

To whit: Does the opinion of the group described by [population of the kingdom minus the population of the village] who get to live on because the village in question was destroyed have a say in qualifying the goodness/evilness of the act? If not, that does seem to suggest that the guy getting a speeding ticket (and complaining about the injustice of a cop sitting in a speed trap to make the community money instead of being out catching murderers) gets to judge the nature of the action, irrespective of the collective view on the risks of speeding and duly appointed authority of the community to police that action.

Now, if you are following an absolutist view of the matter, who sets the terms for good/evil? Is it the individual receiving the action as your point about the villagers suggests, there will be an awful lot of bias. Suffering will clearly taint the view.

If it is a consequentialist viewpoint you wish to take, we have to be more concerned with the situation and overall outcome of the action, wherein the feelings of the broader population come much more into play.

While there are a lot of arguments to be made and valid points of view, I think you'll have a tough row to hoe suggesting that Ned (and the rest of the Starks) are as non-zero "evil" as Sandor, selected Lannisters, Hoat, Ramsay or the other "black hats".

- M

[TheSummoner]

there is still a great difference between evil acts not only on the level of evil but also based on the motivation behind it. If I burn down a village to save a kingdom it is entirely different from burning down a village to hear the screams of the villagers.

A difference I'm sure the villagers just line up to appreciate.

To which I reply

Ser Jaime, I have seen terrible things in my time, Wars, battles, murders most foul... I was a boy in Oldtown when the grey plague took half the city and three-quarters of the Citadel. Lord Hightower burned every ship in port, closed the gates, and commanded his guards to slay all those who tried to flee, be they men, women, or babes in arms. They killed him when the plague had run its course. On the very day he reopened the port, they dragged him from his horse and slit his throat, and his young son’s as well. To this day the ignorant in Oldtown will spit at the sound of his name, but Quenton Hightower did what was needed. Your father was that sort of man as well. A man who did what was needed.

The villagers may not like it, but in that sort of scenario, the villagers don't matter. The villagers are dead either way. Either the plague takes them or they get cut down trying to escape. Lord Hightower did what he could to save those who could be saved. The villagers didn't like it, but what he did was right.

Now, this example isn't directly comparable to the War of Five Kings, but my point is that intentions do matter. Intentions, actions, and results - All must be considered. In the case of Lord Hightower, the actions may have been bad, but both the intentions and results were good and he potentially saved many lives by ordering his guards to cut down anyone who tried to leave the city.

[Anteros]

Bus example
- M

It doesn't make your savior evil, it just makes your view of them flawed. To an impartial outside observer (say for example....someone reading a book about him saving you) his actions are not evil no matter how much you resent hitting the asphalt.

If I were a character in the books, my personal experiences might lead me to think the Starks are evil. As an outside observer the position doesn't hold up.

[Jerthanis]

I highly doubt a situation exists where Ned would throw a child from a window to preserve his own honor. If he did do such a thing, then yes I would call him evil. That never happened though.

There were deeper reasons for him wanting to expose the incest than "the law says so". Like wanting to avoid an unlawful, and terrible despotic rule by an evil child.

Uh... he did tell everyone that the children were products of incest, and encouraged Cersei take them out of the country because he thought that their lives were forfeit if they stayed. He was under the impression that they could well die as a result of what he did, and did it anyway.

Seems pretty similar to pushing a child out a window because honor dictated it.

Also, Joffrey's evil nature had not reared its head so far. He was still a child and Ned was encouraged to guide the young man to becoming a good king, show him an example that isn't Robert. Ned didn't care. The law said he wasn't to rule. Whether he was to be a good king or a bad one didn't matter... it wasn't in his blood.


Yes, Shireen, Tommen, and Myrcella are all evil incarnate. :smalltongue:

I meant Robert, Stannis and Renly. Discussing Cersei's children is always going to be odd in these terms because of their mismatched biological versus legal parentage. I've argued "Lannisters aren't as bad as people see them." and heard, "How can you say that, Joffrey is a Lannister!" indicating he's generally grouped in with Jaime, Cersei, Tywin, and Tyrion.

The question of whether the children are Baratheons or Lannisters is always going to be a place where people potentially talk past each other.


Well, you're wrong. Jaime threw a kid out of a window to save himself. Ned warned Cersei that he was going to tell his friend about her crime, not to save himself but specifically so that she could save her children... and despite thinking that the Lannisters attempted to have his son killed. The intended beneficiaries of Jaime's action was Jaime and Cersei. The intended beneficiary of Ned's was Cersei and her children.

One really is significantly worse.

If Ned hadn't warned Cersei, then you could maybe make an argument. But he did, so you're just talking gibberish. I realize that you're playing devils advocate here, but a bit of internal consistency would be good.

Ned warned Cersei, yes, but he had a choice not to place her children in harm's way in the first place. He only placed them in harm's way because of the dictates of honor, and the only reason they weren't hurt as the result of his action is because he was grossly incompetent and ineffectual.

It's like if Jaime explained in detail to Bran he was about to push him out the window in order to keep the secret of his and Cersei's incest a secret (remember Bran was too young to understand sex and didn't recognize who they were) and then tripped while trying to push Bran out the window, and fell out himself.

Sure, he failed spectacularly, but Ned did things which put children in danger too. His reason for doing so was far less sympathetic to me.


How so?

Robert is a vicious, self-important drunkard, a malicious, stupid king who bankrupts his kingdom filling his own selfish impulses and yearning for the glory days. He beats his wife and probably his children when he isn't being an absentee father. He sends assassins after children on the off chance they some day challenge his rule.

Robert is a terrible, awful person who should never have been king by his own words. His personal failings write the tapestry of tragedy that is the Game of Thrones story.



While there are a lot of arguments to be made and valid points of view, I think you'll have a tough row to hoe suggesting that Ned (and the rest of the Starks) are as non-zero "evil" as Sandor, selected Lannisters, Hoat, Ramsay or the other "black hats".


Perhaps the Starks don't display as much glee at the evil they do, and that lack of glee does suggest indeed they wish to limit how much evil they do. Remember that Roose Bolton is a Northman though, and employed with as much aplomb as Hoat.

I'll hoe this row to the end of my days.

[warty goblin]

Uh... he did tell everyone that the children were products of incest, and encouraged Cersei take them out of the country because he thought that their lives were forfeit if they stayed. He was under the impression that they could well die as a result of what he did, and did it anyway.

Seems pretty similar to pushing a child out a window because honor dictated it.

Not really. Realizing the action society dictates you legally and ethically required to take might harm innocents, and taking steps to prevent that harm is a very different thing than directly trying to kill somebody.


Also, Joffrey's evil nature had not reared its head so far. He was still a child and Ned was encouraged to guide the young man to becoming a good king, show him an example that isn't Robert. Ned didn't care. The law said he wasn't to rule. Whether he was to be a good king or a bad one didn't matter... it wasn't in his blood.
Ned almost certainly knew the true version of the fight on the Trident, and before the tournament Robert pretty much flat out tells Ned he thinks Joffrey is a wretch. I don't think this is anywhere near the main reason Ned refuses the possibility of Joffrey ruling, but he pretty clearly knew the kid wasn't a great king.



Perhaps the Starks don't display as much glee at the evil they do, and that lack of glee does suggest indeed they wish to limit how much evil they do. Remember that Roose Bolton is a Northman though, and employed with as much aplomb as Hoat.

I'll hoe this row to the end of my days.
It may be an accident of perspectives, but I never got the impression that Robb Stark's bases of operation were Harrenhals. At least in the TV show, it's made fairly clear in fact that he sees prisoners and enemy wounded treated well.

[Axolotl]

Uh... he did tell everyone that the children were products of incest, and encouraged Cersei take them out of the country because he thought that their lives were forfeit if they stayed. He was under the impression that they could well die as a result of what he did, and did it anyway.

Seems pretty similar to pushing a child out a window because honor dictated it.

Also, Joffrey's evil nature had not reared its head so far. He was still a child and Ned was encouraged to guide the young man to becoming a good king, show him an example that isn't Robert. Ned didn't care. The law said he wasn't to rule. Whether he was to be a good king or a bad one didn't matter... it wasn't in his blood.But Ned isn't doing this for honour, he's doing it because he thinks that Cersei is committing a series of murders targeting everyone from the second most powerful man in the Kingdom to a member of Ned's own family all in order to cover up her infidelity. He's not endangering children for the heck of, he's doing it to expose a murderer that's targeting his own son and even then he endangers himself (fatally as it turns out) just to protect those children. Now we know that he was being tricked by Littlefinger (someone who's evil I think is massively underrated by a lot of fans) but given what Ned believed he acted in a very moral fashion.

Robb on the other hand was scum who deserved everything he got but you're being far too harsh on Ned.

[Deepbluediver]

Uh... he did tell everyone that the children were products of incest, and encouraged Cersei take them out of the country because he thought that their lives were forfeit if they stayed. He was under the impression that they could well die as a result of what he did, and did it anyway.
....
Ned warned Cersei, yes, but he had a choice not to place her children in harm's way in the first place. He only placed them in harm's way because of the dictates of honor, and the only reason they weren't hurt as the result of his action is because he was grossly incompetent and ineffectual.


That's...not quite the interpretation I got from it. As far as I could tell, Ned warned Cersei about what he was going to do, because he was trying to save the lives of her and her children while still staying within his moral code, and the law of the land. Are you saying that Ned should have ignored the law and simply done whatever he wanted? I don't see any way that can start to go wrong.

If he was really as honor-bound as you say, then he should have denounced them in public, consequences be damned. Instead he tried to compromise, and it got him executed and his daughters taken hostage.


Perhaps the Starks don't display as much glee at the evil they do, and that lack of glee does suggest indeed they wish to limit how much evil they do. Remember that Roose Bolton is a Northman though, and employed with as much aplomb as Hoat.

Your position seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) that evil born of ignorance is worse than evil born of malice or greed. I don't get the impression that the Starks think to themelves "I'm going to start a war because my honor dictates it!", it's that they think by sticking to their honor, peace, happiness, and rainbows will come to the land. So while they make stupid decisions, they are not vindictive about it. The problem is that they are a little naive in a world of machiavellian SOBs.
To paraphrase, I think it was less "this is about honor" and more "this is about executing my dad and imprisoning my sisters".

The honor before mercy thing seems more like Stannis' bit, and the Starks (barring Caitlin) seem more like tragic greek heros (who could also be kind of dickish, admittedly).

Robb screwed up, but in the book he's only a few years older than Joffrey, 14-16, I think. And when he screws up, he tries to make amends while staying within his moral boundaries (like his father). And he gets backstabbed for it (like his father).


Robert is a vicious, self-important drunkard, a malicious, stupid king who bankrupts his kingdom filling his own selfish impulses and yearning for the glory days. He beats his wife and probably his children when he isn't being an absentee father. He sends assassins after children on the off chance they some day challenge his rule.

Robert is a terrible, awful person who should never have been king by his own words. His personal failings write the tapestry of tragedy that is the Game of Thrones story.

I had forgotten about the assassins. As for the rest of it...
"self-important drunkard" seems like small potatoes compared to actual evil; if you want to start calling personality flaws "evil" then that pretty much includes every single character in the book.

We only have Cersei's word that Robert beat her, and she's not exactly an ubiased source. I think you're speculating on the bit about his children.

Cersei wasn't much better at the bankruptcy thing, and again you seem to be taking ignorance to be the same as malice.

He doesn't want to be king because its a ****ty job. He ends up as king because the guy he replaced was certifiably insane (as a result of incest, the same thing that produced the Lannister brood), and was working on murdering pretty much everyone everywhere.

None of this makes him good, but it's not like the situation was flowers and springtime before he got on the thrown. If you want to place blame, then why stop at the Starks and Robert, who mostly seem to be reactive in response to everything that goes on around them?
Why not blame the originators of the problems, like Cersei, who aborted Robert's one legitmate child? Or the people who, in contrast to Robert, WANT to be in charge, but are equally terrible at it.

[Fallbot]

We only have Cersei's word that Robert beat her, and she's not exactly an ubiased source. I think you're speculating on the bit about his children.


We have Cersei's internal monologue to suggest that Robert beat and raped her. Unless she was lying to herself or misremembering, and there's nothing particularly suggesting it, it happened. And, you know, Ned actually sees him hit her in the face 'onscreen'.

He beat Joffrey after the incident with the pregnant cat, hard enough to knock out several of his teeth and knock him unconscious IIRC.

[Deepbluediver]

We have Cersei's internal monologue to suggest that Robert beat and raped her. Unless she was lying to herself or misremembering, and there's nothing particularly suggesting it, it happened. And, you know, Ned actually sees him hit her in the face 'onscreen'.

He beat Joffrey after the incident with the pregnant cat, hard enough to knock out several of his teeth and knock him unconscious IIRC.

/shrug

Then he's a terrible guy, fine, but that would really only put him in line with all the other terrible people. It seems a little weird to call him the "worst person in the story" and/or blame him for everything that transpired, when this was the guy (http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Aerys_II_Targaryen) he replaced. I guess I kind of glossed over some of his more terrible crimes in place of the actual torture, slavery, and insanity of the other characters.

I realize that, objectively, saying something like "I only killed 10 people and not 1,000" doesn't really make the first any less evil, but subjectively I can't help feeling that he was at least doing a little bit better than the guy who planned on killing everyone in the city in a horrible fiery death just to spite him.

Also, I described the morality of the setting as "grey, black, and darker black", and at this point I feel like we're just arguing over how pitch dark Robert is on the spectrum. If you want to make any further reply, I'll be glad to read it, but I'll refrain from any additional comments myself.

[Jerthanis]

He ends up as king because the guy he replaced was certifiably insane (as a result of incest, the same thing that produced the Lannister brood), and was working on murdering pretty much everyone everywhere.

Okay, once you compare Robert to the mad king, sure, he's not quite THAT bad. I personally grant some degree of forgiveness to a person for being certifiable in their legitimate insanity, but I suppose you might well respond that Robert was just as much a victim of his nature and then I'd have to prove free will exists in order to argue he's got more culpability for less crime and I can't exactly do that.

But once you knock down Aerys, who can you compare Robert to and find the OTHER party wanting? I could see an argument for Littlefinger maybe... the Iron Islanders probably since their creedo is "Do nothing but evil all the time", plus the torturers, probably.

I will note however that Rhaegar, Daenerys, Tommen and Mycella (is that her name?) are all children of incest too, and Rhaegar (IIRC) was largely considered a potential return to the glory days of the Targaryen bloodline, and was just and noble before Robert killed him. Dany may yet turn out to be the series' only actual good guy, and Tommen and Mycella seem like good kids and don't show a hint of their older brother's bloodlust. Condemning Cersei for having children with the man she loved rather than the monster she was forced to marry just because the man she loved is her brother is pretty callous in my eyes.

Cersei IS a bad guy in my eyes, but I have a lot of sympathy for her. I also had a lot of sympathy for Caitlyn, and I'm always shocked at how much vitriol gets thrown around at both of them.

[Rosstin]

"I have at least 10 hours to spend watching HBO*, and time to spend reading Yahoo articles on the show, and time to spend writing comments on those articles. But time to read a book? Come on now, that's crazy talk."

Sometimes little things like this make me sad.

- M


Coming from someone who has read a simply preposterous amount of books, I still don't think this is quite fair. There a ton of reasons people might have for not wanting to read the books. Sometimes people just enjoy the animated/film version of something better.

[warty goblin]

I will note however that Rhaegar, Daenerys, Tommen and Mycella (is that her name?) are all children of incest too, and Rhaegar (IIRC) was largely considered a potential return to the glory days of the Targaryen bloodline, and was just and noble before Robert killed him. Dany may yet turn out to be the series' only actual good guy, and Tommen and Mycella seem like good kids and don't show a hint of their older brother's bloodlust.

Or Dany could be totally axe crazy; it could honestly go either way at this point.


Cersei IS a bad guy in my eyes, but I have a lot of sympathy for her. I also had a lot of sympathy for Caitlyn, and I'm always shocked at how much vitriol gets thrown around at both of them.
My mood towards Cersei has...mellowed over the years. Not really a fan still, and I've never liked her PoV chapters very much. Mostly because at some point the political intrigue of King's Landing gets really old, particularly post Joffrey. Kid was evil on a stick don't get me wrong, but his presence made the King's Landing segments engaging, in a scary way. When he was around, you could be assured of something dreadful happening. After he bites it though, it's just another scheme or minor plot, some resolution, and Cersei going steadily over the deep end.

One thing I definitely like about the TV show is that they changed Cat so not every single thing she does in the first book is completely wrong.

[Rosstin]

For example, the first time I read The Golden Compass, all the anti-church bias just went completely over my head. But it apparently was a big deal when someone decided to make it into a movie. By the same token, I recall hearing that at one point the producers where trying to take the religious symbolism out of the Narnia movies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-HDjGM0lwE

because someone mentioned the cut ending of Golden Compass

[Kitten Champion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-HDjGM0lwE

because someone mentioned the cut ending of Golden Compass

Yes, that's exactly what I wanted, and I would've forgiven all the other problems the movie had with such a conclusion.

[JustSomeGuy]

Conveniently enough, on a re-re-read, i've just hit the king's landing riot, and there are a few points that seem relevant here (although if some are off point don't throw dung at me, i'm going from what was posted yesterday, forgotten, then popped into my head during the book).

King Robert, at least from the commons' perspective, wasn't such a bad king as people make out: he was charismatic and a bold 'hero' of sorts, the type people back easily. He provided plenty of tourneys, feasts etc. and i think he travelled his lands by the sounds of it (so he wasn't seen as some distant nobody), which i think the 'smallfolk' like given how they name places and spread tales of the time such-and-such came by (like the queens tower where bran & co hide when jon passes through as an example).

His bankrupting the realm didn't affect the commoners, it was a matter of littlefinger & such juggling/borrowing and high level politics between lords and institutions, many times removed from the smallfolks. They had food, shelter and stability under King Robert, and it seems that is all they wanted, as evidenced by 'king bread!'

During the riots, the smallfolk clearly hate the lannisters' incest and beheading of nedding, also shouting for Stark justice and King Robb, as well as Stannis. This could be put down to jsut saying anything to rile up Cersei and co, but i wouldn't say so - things were clearly better under the old king, and they seem to feel some affinity for 'stark honour'.

I would intepret that as the commoners feeling like they prefer lords and kings who would stand by their words and have something of a set code of practice/law/justice, as opposed to a family that have proven repeated betrayals (tywins sack of KL after the gates were opened for them, crossbowing people daring to ask for food, packing slynt off to the wall for daring to deny the imp/demon, imprisoning pycell for something i forget, bringing hordes of sellswords and clansmen to KL who swagger about obeying only the laws they feel like), all while growing fat behind the walls of the red keep as the people starve outside... maybe they feel like a ruling class with integrity and honour is a worthy pursuit?

[Mauve Shirt]

Re: Watching the show rather than reading the books

I read pretty quickly, if I like a book. I read 4 or 5 Dresden Files in a day, and when I had nothing else to do I could knock out 2 Wheel of Time books in 3 days. A Song Of Ice And Fire is not a series I liked.
It drags. It has so many characters that my feeble literary Monkeysphere can't handle it, and just when I think I can take it another character shows up. And there are NO successes. No one who I like wins at all.
I only got to the middle of the 2nd book before I decided **** it, I'll watch the show for easy digestion of this pop cultural phenomenon, but I've got plenty of books out there that I'll enjoy reading.

[JustSomeGuy]

Yeah, there are so many new important characters just suddenly turn up, but i suppose you can afford that luxury when you kill so many established ones... and the political intrigue plot turns up, starts to get serious, then takes it's ball and goes home. Only to turn up books later and wants to play again, but in the meantime so many fantastical creatures and dressing gowned wizards have cropped up, no one is willing to take it seriously anymore. They're all to busy reading about lobstered steel this, roasted capon that, and the others' the other. Also nippled breastplates, oiled beards and moustachios, and various missing appendages and facial features (i don't think a chapter goes by without someone missing a nose, ear, hand, fingers or arm, and someone else with some greasy/dyed facial hair).

It is a strange old thing, i think i like it but somehow every individual aspect of it i don't like, only when put together something happens and i somehow forget everything else and it's great!

[Mordar]

Coming from someone who has read a simply preposterous amount of books, I still don't think this is quite fair. There a ton of reasons people might have for not wanting to read the books. Sometimes people just enjoy the animated/film version of something better.

My point was kind of this...had the woman simply said exactly what I bolded above, this conversation never would have started. It was the "I don't have time to read the books" cop-out/comment intersecting with the clear time spent watching TV, reading about the TV show, and commenting on the TV show stories (when all of that time could have been used for reading the book) that triggered my sadness.

- M

[TheSummoner]

Re King Robert:

Robert was a good leader in that he was good at making people like him and making them want to follow him. He was a poor administrator, though if his advisors hadn't been a bunch of butt kissers, his reign could've had all of the good without all of the waste and excess. In regards to his relationship with Cersei, I do not defend his actions, but the problems were as much her fault as they were his. The fact that he married her when the Lyanna wound was still open was probably the biggest thing that made things go south, but IIRC, that was Jon Arryn's bad decision.

[warty goblin]

My point was kind of this...had the woman simply said exactly what I bolded above, this conversation never would have started. It was the "I don't have time to read the books" cop-out/comment intersecting with the clear time spent watching TV, reading about the TV show, and commenting on the TV show stories (when all of that time could have been used for reading the book) that triggered my sadness.

- M

I could have spent the time I used to comment on this thread to read any one of the ludicrous number of books that crowd my 'to be read' shelf (yes shelf). This doesn't mean I don't read; I'll finish up two or maybe three books this week and probably start in on some Euripides. It means that I do things for entertainment besides read, which, naturally, means some things don't get read.

[Water_Bear]

Rhaegar (IIRC) was largely considered a potential return to the glory days of the Targaryen bloodline, and was just and noble before Robert killed him.

Except for the whole "kidnapped a woman to rape her, then killed her" thing, which is the main reason Robert wanted him dead in the first place. He might have been more popular, but I'm not sure if he was any more noble than his father.

[Deepbluediver]

Okay, once you compare Robert to the mad king, sure, he's not quite THAT bad. I personally grant some degree of forgiveness to a person for being certifiable in their legitimate insanity, but I suppose you might well respond that Robert was just as much a victim of his nature and then I'd have to prove free will exists in order to argue he's got more culpability for less crime and I can't exactly do that.

I'm not going to argue about this; I really don't want to. But I find it interesting that you seem more willing to excuse King Aerys's paranoia as "legitimate insanity" than you are to excuse Robert's assassination's out of fear his rule would be challenged.

By all accounts, King Aery's was a decent person before he got kidnapped, was rescued more or less in OK shape, and then went downhill afterward. Do you think we could find a similar trigger event for Robert that excuses his behavior? Or maybe he was heading in the Mad King's direction, and was just stopped before he got that far.


I will note however that Rhaegar, Daenerys, Tommen and Mycella (is that her name?) are all children of incest too, and Rhaegar (IIRC) was largely considered a potential return to the glory days of the Targaryen bloodline, and was just and noble before Robert killed him. Dany may yet turn out to be the series' only actual good guy, and Tommen and Mycella seem like good kids and don't show a hint of their older brother's bloodlust.

I don't recall alot of the details about Rhaegar from the book, most of what I know came from the Wiki. He was described both as being a good leader and well liked, but also suffering from melancholy; I don't know what effect, if any, that might have had on his reign.

More importantly though, the spark that triggered the eventual revolt against King Aerys was Rheagarr's kidnapping of Lyanna Stark. Whether it was actually forced or more of an unrequitted-love type of situation, as far as I know it has yet to really be explained, which doesn't exactly shine a bright light on his prospects for long-term mental stability, or a rational and effective rule.

ASoFaI is a fictional work, but I think it's still interesting to read about real world examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse) of this sort of thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain). The thing about procreation between close relatives is that the problems don't always show up immediately, and they don't even occur all the time. The problem is that in hereditary dynastic set-ups, its easy for some one who's a little off their rocker to end up in a position of power, and its difficult to work around the really bad cases.


Condemning Cersei for having children with the man she loved rather than the monster she was forced to marry just because the man she loved is her brother is pretty callous in my eyes.

Cersei IS a bad guy in my eyes, but I have a lot of sympathy for her. I also had a lot of sympathy for Caitlyn, and I'm always shocked at how much vitriol gets thrown around at both of them.

I've errased 3 replies to this bit already; I feel like this discussion is bordering on a debate over morality and ethics, and is therefor a minefield. I need to choose my words carefully.

I'm not condeming Cersei for love, but she seemed to choose love over all other considerations. And then she went further, and did some pretty bad stuff in the defense of that. I guess it seems like my attitude towards her mirrors your attitude towards the Starks and "honor". We both get upset over the actions of different characters who shunned common sense or practicality in favor of more personal goals.
One of my favorite characters in the books is Tyrion, because he seems to combine the Lannister's practicality (even to the point of cruelty if it gets the job done) with the sympathy, self-sacrifice, and understanding you get from the Stark's; he seems incredibly competent at whatever he needs to, without being an ******* about it. I found it incredibly depressing that he got dumped on so much.


To try and stay on this thread's topic: I feel that a big part of why so much hate gets slung around is because a lot of people don't even make an effort to empathize with others.
Empathy is tough, I won't disagree with that. But to often it seems like people are thinking "I'm right, and anyone who disagrees with me is just stupid-wrong." When objectively, it would probably be that the warring parties have very different relative outlooks. There's no compromise, no middle ground, not even an "agree to disagree"; it's just pure stubborness from both sides.

I can and will argue with some one, but in most cases I try to understand where they are coming from, and what situations or assumptions are leading them to thier point of view. One of my biggest curiosities is trying to see how the world is from some one else's perspective.

I am both releaved and disappointed that science hasn't invented mind-hopping technology yet. :smallamused:

[snoopy13a]

Except for the whole "kidnapped a woman to rape her, then killed her" thing, which is the main reason Robert wanted him dead in the first place. He might have been more popular, but I'm not sure if he was any more noble than his father.

We don't know the actual truth. The two may have eloped. Of course, this still would be bad as Rheagar had a (pregnant at the time?) wife and daughter. Rheagar's actions, whether evil or immature, catalyzed the deaths of his family well, maybe not baby Aegon--we don't know as it set into motion the revolt.

If Rheagar did not kidnap (or run off with) Lyanna then it is possible that war would not have occurred.

[warty goblin]

Except for the whole "kidnapped a woman to rape her, then killed her" thing, which is the main reason Robert wanted him dead in the first place. He might have been more popular, but I'm not sure if he was any more noble than his father.

It's fairly unclear what actually went down vis a vis Rhaegar and Lyanna. It's made abundantly clear he had a thing for her. Whether or not she reciprocated is rather more up in the air. Robert claims it was rape, but he's hardly the most qualified of people to give an objective judgement. Eddard, who's the only person who would really know since both knew Lyanna well and was with her when she died, never says or thinks anything to clarify the matter.

My guess is that it was entirely voluntary on Lyanna's part. She's described as being willful and uncontrollable, and there's no indication that Rhaegar did anything else particularly despicable. It also is a much better tonal match for the sense of failed romanticism that permeates the series.

[Rosstin]

the woman

Really?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/7213%20-%20raised_eyebrow%20the_rock%20wwf.png

[Mordar]

I could have spent the time I used to comment on this thread to read any one of the ludicrous number of books that crowd my 'to be read' shelf (yes shelf). This doesn't mean I don't read; I'll finish up two or maybe three books this week and probably start in on some Euripides. It means that I do things for entertainment besides read, which, naturally, means some things don't get read.

No, of course it doesn't mean you don't read. But you didn't read this whole thread, comment on it, post on a bunch of other threads, evidence hours or TV watching about this thread, and then say "I don't have time to read".

*That* was my point from "go" - just say you don't wanna, and I might try to convince you, but that's it. Say " I don't have time" when you really mean "I don't value it highly" or "I don't wanna" and I sigh and shake my head.


Really?

[Rock snip]

While I appreciate the Rock (old-school, "...pancake your a$$ back to Toledo, it doesn't matter what you think!") as much as (okay, probably MUCH more than) the next guy, I'm not sure what you're asking.

I thought I had linked the original story in the first post, but it appears I did not. The comment was from someone using a female icon and with a feminine name, so I feel reasonably safe in the assumption that the poster was a woman. Could be wrong, of course.

Now, if you're suggesting that my saying I wouldn't have started the thread had "she" said "I'm only watching the show. I haven't read the books, and I don't want to..." is dubious, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken (though not 100% sure).

- M

[Rosstin]

My apologies, I'm just being difficult when it isn't my place.

[Anteros]

Dany may yet turn out to be the series' only actual good guy,

Did John Snow ever do anything ostensibly evil? I remember him being pretty good. There are a few other people I would classify as good also, but you've already made it clear you would disagree with me on them so there's no point in re-hashing them.

[JustSomeGuy]

Yeah, Dany burned someone alive, left 167? i forget how many how people staked up alive with thier entrails cut loose, double crossed and sneak attacked the unsullied trainers, employs the unsullied (who kill an innocent as part of their training lest we forget), stole and destroyed illyrio's ships, and is plotting an invasion. Sounds so sweet and innocent to me!

[Jerthanis]

I'm not going to argue about this; I really don't want to. But I find it interesting that you seem more willing to excuse King Aerys's paranoia as "legitimate insanity" than you are to excuse Robert's assassination's out of fear his rule would be challenged.

I'm having trouble figuring out how you got this from what I wrote. Obviously the practical effects of King Aerys trying to burn the world to cinders would be worse than an ignorant drunkard paying an assassin to murder a child. The culpability is different if King Aerys had no control or understanding of his actions, such as if he was suffering from a debilitating psychosis. Obviously if I were to claim a madman has less responsibility than a sane man, I have to prove the sane man DOES have control or understanding of his actions. I can't prove that, so I'm conceding the point. Maybe Robert is a victim of his own nature.

But even by that standard, Robert is uncommonly douchey. Perhaps not Murder The World bad, but a pretty contemptible and unsympathetic character overall. The type of person you have to hold him up next to to make him look better for the comparison is pretty extreme indeed.



I'm not condeming Cersei for love, but she seemed to choose love over all other considerations. And then she went further, and did some pretty bad stuff in the defense of that. I guess it seems like my attitude towards her mirrors your attitude towards the Starks and "honor". We both get upset over the actions of different characters who shunned common sense or practicality in favor of more personal goals.

Cersei wanted to have kids with Jaime, and wanted those kids to be safe and happy. Unfortunately, because of the circumstances of her marriage... a situation she had no control over or ability to change... those two goals were mutually exclusive so long as anyone knew the children were Jaime's.

So she murders some people who seem to be figuring out the secret that will get her children killed. Sure, murder is bad, Cersei's a bad guy, but if she doesn't, her children are dead.

So you can either say she's selfish for wanting kids with a (mostly good) man she loves over a monster she hates, but I'm not generally one to tell a politically oppressed group of people to just accept the fact that they are systematically enslaved since it'd just be so much trouble for everyone to actually accept that they have rights. I'm also not one to judge a member of such an oppressed group to resent the position they're put into and rebel in what ways they can against that tyrannical system. Even if that rebellion incidentally causes trouble for that tyrannical system. Perhaps especially in that case. Because that's what "Other considerations" are in this case... fulfilling your duties to supporting a culture which is in the act of enslaving you.


Did John Snow ever do anything ostensibly evil? I remember him being pretty good. There are a few other people I would classify as good also, but you've already made it clear you would disagree with me on them so there's no point in re-hashing them.

Nah, I'd probably name him a good character overall, maybe. I just wasn't thinking of him at the time. My recollection of Jon is dulled a bit by distance from reading the books and never really having any really engaging arguments about him. Except the obvious one about who his parentage might be.

I was also very intentionally careful in wording my description of Dany, since yeah, she could just be another murderous jerk on top of the mountain of murderous jerks. Saying she could be the only actual good person in the books was hyperbole... I mean, Hot Pie seemed like a pretty good person. Blind Maester Aemon seems like a good person... you can get a pretty good list going if you really look, it's just much harder to find them among viewpoint characters or characters who have any real power.



My guess is that it was entirely voluntary on Lyanna's part. She's described as being willful and uncontrollable, and there's no indication that Rhaegar did anything else particularly despicable. It also is a much better tonal match for the sense of failed romanticism that permeates the series.

Yeah, this is my impression as well. Perhaps it's wrong, but it's also the impression most of the rest of my group of friends has, so we just take it as the default assumption when we get in Game of Thrones discussions. If it winds up that Robert was telling the truth, well... I guess I'll take it back, and maybe the book series really is just presenting incest as the seed of evil.

[SuperPanda]

Re: The whose who of Westeros douche population: (primarily screen version since I vastly prefer HBOs treatment to Martin's books to Martins own treatment, info from books might sneak in though).

King Robert - Everyone's "favorite" mysoginistic drunkard.

Almost from the Robert's introduction he's pretty unlikeable. He's like a spoiled brat whose gotten used to not letting anyone say no to him, but there is a respect for Eddard Stark in those early meetings. There is a suggestion that once Robert was a good man, and if anyone could bend him back that way again it is Eddard.

A horrible husband, and wretched man, and rough with disicpline. The issues with Joffery though are only half his fault. His and Cersei's horrible relationship poisoned Joffery, he learned how to manipulate them. He learned to be spoiled and rude from Robbert and he learned cruelty and spite from Cersei. His irresponsibility as King are failings but hardly world class evil. I felt no grief for his passing, but neither was I calling for his head right away (though to be fair, this is largely because Cersei is set up as an evil bigger jerk than he is early on).

Cercei - The Queen whose sympathetic position is matched only by the extreme venom she unleashes on anyone who might have slighted her.

Her position is highly sympathetic... almost identicle to Sansa's once Joffery's real colors are shown. She's a mother and its her duty to protect her children, she was forced into a horrible position by an aweful and unfeeling society that mistreats all of its women. Robert was beyond horible as a husband.

But Cersei is no delicate flower, she's a schemer in her own right. She chose to have her trist with Jamie while visiting the Starks and that was stupid. In Kings Landing she had much more control. When Bran saw them she strongly hinted that Jamie needed to deal with it with the "he's seen us" lines. The command to kill the child is in her voice. When Cersei interacts with Margery and Sansa and Tyrion, anyone who might come between her and her children there is a jealous, selfish venom there. Cersei doesn't just see nothing wrong with causing pain, she enjoys it.

When Eddard revealed her "crimes," he gave her time to protct her children. With Tywin's power, her children would not have been killed anywhere, and he hadn't planned to make known who the father was beyond that it wasn't Robert. She'd be disgraced, her children would be disgraced, but they wouldn' t be killed. What he'd threatened was her power because he chose kindness.

Cersei's response to Tyrion sending Marcella showed the same jealous spite. She hate's the world and wants the world to bow to her whim. The problem with Joffery isn't that he didn't learn enough from her, but rather that he learned too much. She likes to hurt people too but she is more clever abou it.

Rob Stark - The young wolf, aptly named because compared to the other movers and shakers of Westeros politics he might not be smart enough to have an alignment.

My thoughts on this started when I saw Rob called one of the "bad guys" and read the resulting rational.

Sorry... not seeing it. Rember hospitality is a Huge deal in these cultures. Like the gaelic clans, the North especially value it. When you are a guest under someone's roof you make yourself as little trouble as possible and you respect their house/family. When you have someone as a guest you make them safe and comfortable and you respect their house/family. You do this even if your houses are enemies. This is the highest of all Laws.

Rob's story starts with a violation of this Law, when the Lannisters tried to kill his brother while guests of his father. Then they sent an assasin, a direct attack against his House. Things escalate, Cait makes mistakes with Tyrion, his Father who at the time the rightfully second most powerful man in the Kingdom (as he knows, actually by the laws he's suppose to be the most powerful man) is imprisoned by the same people who tried to kill his brother. If Eddard had been allowed to take the black Robb would be angry and would bear the Lannisters no love but it might have ended. Then Joffery pours salt into the wounds and kicks the Starts some with Eddard's beheading.

Now Rob has a right/duty to avenge his father and brother. He did not ask to be king, but the Lords of the North felt the insults to the Starks were wroth rebelling for. They chose him.

And he is killed with another violation of Guest rights, just as his tragedy started as one. He was a victim the whole way through the story and while he made mistakes... I can't call him "one of the bad guys" when the only people he wanted to hurt were the ones who'd hurt him and when they'd hurt him for petty reasons. The Starks were not Robert, The Starks were not Tywin. They were made to pay brutally for the evils of others and fought back against that wishing to set aside a safe place for their family.

Jamie Lannister - Handsome, skilled, wealthy... Cersei might be the only person more in love with Jamie than Jamie is.

With a gloating smile and a jest he threw a child from a window. This is more or less how we are introduced to the character.

his past, service to the Mad King... the story behind "kingslayer" make him sympathetic... but they don't change the fact that wit a gloating smile and a jest he thre a child from a tower window and never lost a night of sleep about it. He hated Eddard Stark, at least in the show, and the latter didn't seem to care about him.

Tyrion got into trouble with the starks (whom Tyrion liked) because of Jamie and so Jamie attacked Eddard in the streets. The exact same mentality that caused Tyrion to be taken captive... the key difference. Jamie wanted to kill, the Starks wanted Justice, which means a trial, and which means a fair chance. Caitlyn was obviously distatisfied that her sister was not going to be fair, and fairness mattered. Jamie didn't care about fair, Jamie only cared about winning.

Really, up until Brienne, that is Jamie in a nutshell. He is petty, he is small minded, and he doesn't care about anthing my Jamie. He's becoming a better character now because he's been made to suffer for that hubris.

Side note: I really like how in the show he doesn't loose his hand for doing the right thing (helping Brienne). He looses it for being arrogant and pushing his luck a bit to far after that.


Joffery Lannister - The only thing to love about the kid is watching his uncle slap him.

Little brat is evil without a brain. He gleefully jests at murder and rape and the only thing he apears to like more than talking about it is doing it. The sooner he dies he better for everyone.

Robbert squandered wealth in Summer and peace, when the realm had more than enough time and ways to restock its coffers. Joffery contiues those excesses in multiple wars and the start of Winter, taking food from the peasants so that he can dine better. Tyrion said it best. "We've had vile kings before and we've had idiot kings before, but gods help us I don't thing we've ever been cursed with a vile idiot before."

Eddard Stark - A man who certainly had enemies who want his name on this list, but then... all of them are on the list too and people who aren't liked him.

Accusation: Did what he did with no thought to the children
Counter: He discovered Cersei's incest and then asked for a private meeting with her where he told her he'd found out before he told anyone else and begged her to take the children elsewhere because he would tell Robert and he didn't trust Robert to be kind to the children. When it was clear Robbert died, he had another choice - give the throne to Cersei and a spoiled child with the hope that he could make the child better while knowing that A) Cersei will try to kill him like she did the last hand and B) Cersei was part of the reason his son was now a cripple.

He still didn't send messages to everyone, only to Stannis, because he wanted to make sure Cersei and the children had the opportunity to leave freely.

He died for his considerations for the children, if he had not thought of them they'd be dead.
---------
Acusation: His honor doomed the kingdom

Partial Agreement: Robert (of all people) asked him to settle things with Cersei, to put it behind them. At that time he had every reason to hate the Lannisters, they'd dishonorbly attack himself and others who he'd considered friends whenever it suited them. He had no reason to trust Cersei would agree to a truce of any kind. Cersei had shown with Lady before that she believed in retribution, lots of retribution, and she didn't much care who paid as long as someone paid. He couldn't really have chosen that if he'd wanted to.

[Wookieetank]

...snipity snip...

I mean, Hot Pie seemed like a pretty good person. Blind Maester Aemon seems like a good person... you can get a pretty good list going if you really look, it's just much harder to find them among viewpoint characters or characters who have any real power.

Samwell and Brienne are two viewpoint characters who seem to be genuinely good, but they do fall under the don't have any real power side of things. *shrugs*