IS George RR martian ghost writing here? (Game of Thrones spoiler inside)

[Glich]

Major Charters are dropping like flys.

D was reborn as something a Bit evil (ala Catelyn ) and now Nate and Malock.

[Rakoa]

Yes. George RR Martian has taken the liberty of flying on his UFO over here to write for the Giant. Really, we should be thankful. He is a very busy alien.

[brionl]

No, George only kills off the likeable characters.

[FlawedParadigm]

No, George only kills off the likeable characters.

Guess who I just spotted that watches the show and hasn't read the books! :p

[Deliverance]

Yes. George RR Martian has taken the liberty of flying on his UFO over here to write for the Giant. Really, we should be thankful. He is a very busy alien.
Thankful? The Martian litters. He drops Major Charters all over the place!

[hoff]

No, George only kills off the likeable characters.

Tell that to Janos.

[brionl]

Guess who I just spotted that watches the show and hasn't read the books! :p

Eh, no. I've never even seen the show. I just don't give a damn for any of the characters that are still left alive. Don't care if he ever does actually finish the series or not.

[Grey Watcher]

Maybe it's the other way around: Rich Burlew is ghostwriting for George R. R. Martin. :smallwink:

[Porthos]

Maybe it's the other way around: Rich Burlew is ghostwriting for George R. R. Martin. :smallwink:

Nah. Rich gives his characters closure more often than not.

GRRM, on the other hand is playing a different game (http://www.dorktower.com/2013/06/19/revenge-of-the-nerd-dork-tower-19-06-13/). :smallamused:

[FlawedParadigm]

Eh, no. I've never even seen the show. I just don't give a damn for any of the characters that are still left alive. Don't care if he ever does actually finish the series or not.

If you don't like Arya, you have no soul. :p

[Kish]

Considering all the members of the Order are still walking around and sapient, that the only characters who have died recently are villains, and, most notably, that Rich said there will never be any rape scenes in the comic, I'd say, "No," with a side of, "Do you know more about Martin than that he's synonymous with high body count?"

[SowZ]

And Rakoa beats me to the punch...

Also, were Georgey boy writing the OOTS, Haley and Elan would not still be together. Or at the very least, one would think the other was dead for an extended period of time. Or something would make the prospect of Haley and Elan staying together long term impossible and they would both know it and have to decide to end it now and save themselves more pain or enjoy the brief moment. Something like that.

But no WAY would they be allowed a modicum of happiness for as long as they've had it.


Eh, no. I've never even seen the show. I just don't give a damn for any of the characters that are still left alive. Don't care if he ever does actually finish the series or not.

You must have loved book four...

[Grey Watcher]

Considering all the members of the Order are still walking around and sapient, that the only characters who have died recently are villains, and, most notably, that Rich said there will never be any rape scenes in the comic, I'd say, "No," with a side of, "Do you know more about Martin than that he's synonymous with high body count?"

Maybe Shakespeare (who killed off a lot of characters in his tragedies) got reincarnated as Rich Burlew who got hired to ghostwrite for George R. R. Martin?

[martianmister]

Did someone called me? No? Whatever...


No, George only kills off the likeable characters.

Only if you like them.

[rgrekejin]

Feh. They're all strictly amateurs compared to Yoshiyuki "Kill 'Em All" Tomino.

[SowZ]

No, George only kills off the likeable characters.

Two words.

This Guy.
http://awoiaf.westeros.org/images/thumb/1/12/Viserys_Targaryen.PNG/250px-Viserys_Targaryen.PNG

[Quorothorn]

I actually quite dislike this 'comparison' that keeps popping up. Martin did not "invent" the idea of killing off important characters (neither did Whedon), and frankly, I think Burlew does it much better.

[Kish]

Did someone called me? No? Whatever...
I suspect if you were ghost writing here, the recent deaths would have been different.

[smuchmuch]

I actually quite dislike this 'comparison' that keeps popping up. Martin did not "invent" the idea of killing off important characters (neither did Whedon), and frankly, I think Burlew does it much better.

If i may, it has never been about the fact he kills major characters that is so characteristic of Martin , many auithors do it. It's the delighfull soul crushing down to earth cynicism and amorality (meant in the best way) with which it happens. He manage to make good anticlimax, that is pretty damn uncommon.

[SowZ]

If i may, it has never been about the fact he kills major characters that is so characteristic of Martin , many auithors do it. It's the delighfull soul crushing down to earth cynicism and amorality (meant in the best way) with which it happens. He manage to make good anticlimax, that is pretty damn uncommon.

It's kind of a, "Anyone can die, the universe is cold and does not do things for dramatic convention, to resolve plot threads, or to give justice to villians/rewards to heroes. Thing just happen. So you should be scared for your favorite character when they are in battle. Plot armor doesn't exist, or if it does, it only does for a few characters and even then it is only a crappy suit of leather."

[Vinsfeld]

Yes. George RR Martian has taken the liberty of flying on his UFO over here to write for the Giant. Really, we should be thankful. He is a very busy alien.

I came here to see this kind of joke. I was not disappointed.

[ti'esar]

"George RR Martian" is officially my favorite typo of all time the last few weeks.

[Tiiba]

"George RR Martian" is officially my favorite typo of all time the last few weeks.

What typo further in the past defeats it?

[ti'esar]

What typo further in the past defeats it?

It was meant as a generic qualification, but the specific thing that came to mind was actually an old Captain America comic in which the hero delivers this memorable threat:

"Only one of us is gonna walk out of here - under his own steam - and it won't be me!"

[skaddix]

No, George only kills off the likeable characters.

Not really but he does seem to think that Lawful Good = Lawful Stupid, 100% of the time.

[SowZ]

Not really but he does seem to think that Lawful Good = Lawful Stupid, 100% of the time.

Ned, probably. Brienne, almost certainly. But Jon is lawful good and knows when to keep his trap shut and when to lie. He does know some things, after all.

[gorocz]

Ned, probably. Brienne, almost certainly. But Jon is lawful good and knows when to keep his trap shut and when to lie. He does know some things, after all.

Nope, he knows nothing, I'm pretty sure about that, the books said it like a hundred times (which can get on your nerves, if you listen to them as audiobook with Roy Dotrice talking as Ygritte...)

[SowZ]

Okay, in the first couple books Jon's pretty stupid. Sometimes really, really stupid and sometimes not very lawful and he really knows nothing. But by the third book or so he really wisens up. He's always young and brash and an improviser, but by the time he's an adult I don't think Lawful Stupid is a fair description.

And Ned was more Stupid Good, really. I mean, his biggest tactical blunders were less about being too stupid to flex on a strict paladins code and more about him being too much of a legitimately good, honorable person to survive in King's Landing.

[jidasfire]

Yeah, this comparison's come up a lot lately. I don't see it.

This is an adventure story in a fantasy world and it's not for kids. Sooner or later, people were going to start dying. The field, particularly when it comes to villains, is going to have to be cleared a bit so the finale won't be an utterly jumbled mess. The last thing anyone wants is this story to be Inuyasha, where all the characters are obnoxiously immortal, always running away to fight another day.

Frankly, I think it's odd that this comparison to Martin is coming up now and not, say, back when War and XPs was going on. Back then, we had the deaths of way more characters, many of whom were plenty likeable, including Shojo, Sangwaan, General Chang, the entire Sapphire Guard, Roy, and Miko.

It's obvious that this is happening because Martin is in the zeitgeist right now, but Martin's story is built on what I would say is a nihilistic disdain for, or at least a contemptuous deconstruction of, the fantasy genre. Rich is definitely doing some deconstruction of D&D, but his story is hopeful, which suggests to me at least that it's in the attempt to reconstruct it. Death in certain types of fiction is inevitable. What matters is how it's portrayed and how much purpose it has.

[FlawedParadigm]

I don't buy the "all good is stupid good" in Martin's writing. Those familiar with The Kingbreaker in Dance know who I mean.

[Killer Angel]

Maybe Shakespeare (who killed off a lot of characters in his tragedies) got reincarnated as Rich Burlew who got hired to ghostwrite for George R. R. Martin?

You are approaching the Truth. Better to stop, otherwise, we'll end displaying the proofs that the earth is flat.

that said...

IS George RR martian ghost writing here?
No.
I've seen many crazy theories on this forum, regarding everything, but no.

[ti'esar]

Frankly, I think it's odd that this comparison to Martin is coming up now and not, say, back when War and XPs was going on. Back then, we had the deaths of way more characters, many of whom were plenty likeable, including Shojo, Sangwaan, General Chang, the entire Sapphire Guard, Roy, and Miko.

Well, to be fair, Sangwaan, General Chang, and most of the Sapphire Guard weren't major characters, or even characters with the level of importance of, say, Zz'dtri. And it's not like Roy was intended to stay dead.

[Giggling Ghast]

George R.R. Martin can't be ghost-writing Order of the Stick for the simple fact that there hasn't been a five year delay between Books 4 and 5.

[rgrekejin]

George R.R. Martin can't be ghost-writing Order of the Stick for the simple fact that there hasn't been a five year delay between Books 4 and 5.

Well, not to nitpick or anything, but it'll be four years since book 4 came out in November, and the 5th book isn't done yet.

[Sir_Leorik]

Yes. George RR Martian has taken the liberty of flying on his UFO over here to write for the Giant. Really, we should be thankful. He is a very busy alien.

Wasn't George R.R. Martian a "Scooby Doo" villain? :smallamused:

[Sir_Leorik]

Ned, probably. Brienne, almost certainly. But Jon is lawful good and knows when to keep his trap shut and when to lie. He does know some things, after all.

I guess you didn't finish reading "A Dance of Dragons" yet, right? :smallcool:

[The Giant]

I'm really tired of this idea that George R. R. Martin invented the concept of killing characters circa year 2000. At least the OP didn't insultingly imply that I'm only killing characters because I'm a fanboy of his, as I have seen elsewhere.

So, for the record: I've never read George R. R. Martin. I haven't watched Game of Thrones. I don't have HBO, for starters, and I haven't bought the DVDs. I am aware, second-hand, that apparently he kills off a lot of characters, sometimes all at once. I can't really say too much about that, though, because I'm not familiar with it.

I can say that I have read several reviews/articles about the work that makes me think that it's not for me, as I have no interest in "gritty realism" for its own sake, I almost exclusively want to read about actual heroes being actually heroic, and I prefer not to read extensive descriptions of meat dishes.

And I've never killed a developed character where that character's death wasn't a direct result of their own choices.

[The Giant]

If i may, it has never been about the fact he kills major characters that is so characteristic of Martin , many auithors do it. It's the delighfull soul crushing down to earth cynicism and amorality (meant in the best way) with which it happens.

I don't know how to respond to this except to say that if you feel that my work is amoral and cynical, I've completely failed as a writer.

[SowZ]

I guess you didn't finish reading "A Dance of Dragons" yet, right? :smallcool:

No, I'm mainly thinking of Storm of Swords where Jon actually starts to learn the things and picks up on when he needs to do what and starts whining less. He makes dumb calls, but those calls come more from not being all too intelligent and doing the best he can with limited smarts in a tough situation, not from being Lawful Stupid. Maybe this isn't the case in number 5..

[Michaeler]

In fairness, GRRM's works mostly pale by comparison to most of Shakespeare's demonstrations of the same style.

[SowZ]

I don't know how to respond to this except to say that if you feel that my work is amoral and cynical, I've completely failed as a writer.

I could be wrong, but I thought smuchmuch made that statement to explain why GRRM 'killing off characters' style is iconic. I didn't see him making a direct comparison to OOTS. Maybe I missed it or maybe the context was confusing.

[The Giant]

I could be wrong, but I thought smuchmuch made that statement to explain why GRRM 'killing off characters' style is iconic. I didn't see him making a direct comparison to OOTS. Maybe I missed it or maybe the context was confusing.

No, the first "he" in his quote was me; that I was characteristic of Martin because I killed characters in a soul-crushingly cynical and amoral way. Which I can't even see how you could get that, unless you were rooting for the villains all along. But then that's on you.

[Shale]

So you're saying he's not your favorite Martin?

Running away now.

[neriana]

Well let's see. Does Rich write rapey, rape apologizing, racist shaggy dog soap operas? I'd say no.

If Rich's work were anything like George R. R. Martin's, I wouldn't be here.

[FlawedParadigm]

You know, I had often wondered Rich's opinion on GRRM's writing but it had simply never occurred to me that perhaps he hadn't even read it.

That being said, while I can say there's a certain lack of fully heroic characters in the novels - even people acting benevolently are not always doing it for altruism - I can also say both that there are genuinely heroic characters. Enough that I actually wonder how people can get the impression that there aren't. I can name half a dozen off the top of my head, and could probably find more examples if I put my mind to it. But, spoilers. I could also point to this same lack in the Stickverse, though. We're down to something like a dozen or dozen and a half named characters actively trying to prevent the supposed end of the world as we know it although, being fair, that's due in part to a lot of them not knowing the world is imperiled. Also, just like GRRM's writing, they're not all altruists. Roy is actually the only one who even got into the group for strictly heroic reasons, as Durkon was "alternative to suicide-by-monster" and Elan was more as a witness to heroics.

I must be the wrong person to comment on the "long food descriptions" thing. I never thought any of the food descriptions were especially long, and certainly nothing like some of the poetry asides in Lord of the Rings. Then again, I've also read Anne Rice and there's an actual Game of Thrones cookbook, so I can only guess I have different standards for long and detailed descriptions of food.

Actually, come to think of it, Rich, your writing rather accidentally probably has far more in common with George's works than you know, or would apparently like to think. I won't say you should read it, because that's arrogant and subjective in any case, but I will say that I consider both of you to be very good writers and that's something I'm rather extremely critical of (especially with my own writing) and that at the very least I would at least recommend them from a library. I personally think they're worth buying and re-reading several times, but I can also understand your hesitation. There might be elements that are darker than usual, and certainly there are things that happen worse than anything that has happened in this story (barring, perhaps, a certain epic Necromancy spell...) but I don't see it as gritty "for it's own sake" but rather to provide realistic examples of human behaviour in a different time. As a paraphrase of something you've said, fiction isn't worth it if it doesn't make us examine our place in the real world.

TL;DR - I recommend the books as a well-written read even if you could find no other reason to try them. There's few enough of those to be had these days, in my wholly subjective and very critical opinion.

[SowZ]

No, the first "he" in his quote was me; that I was characteristic of Martin because I killed characters in a soul-crushingly cynical and amoral way. Which I can't even see how you could get that, unless you were rooting for the villains all along. But then that's on you.

Huh, that's odd. I'm not sure how a world can be completely uncaring and cruel/cynical when that universe has an objective reward system for the good you've done in your life after you die. With the exception of the snarl killings, I suppose, but none of the readers are really in a position to do more than speculate on those.

[martianmister]

Well let's see. Does Rich write rapey, rape apologizing, racist shaggy dog soap operas? I'd say no.

This is uncalled for...:smallannoyed:

[Flame of Anor]

No, the first "he" in his quote was me; that I was characteristic of Martin because I killed characters in a soul-crushingly cynical and amoral way.

I suppose we'll have to wait for smuchmuch to clarify, but--in my experience at least--the phrase "characteristic of X" is used much more often to describe something typical of X when X himself is doing it, not when someone else is.


I have no interest in "gritty realism" for its own sake, I almost exclusively want to read about actual heroes being actually heroic, and I prefer not to read extensive descriptions of meat dishes.

*slow clap*

[FlawedParadigm]

This is uncalled for...:smallannoyed:

And untrue for reasons I can't go in to by reason of board rules.

[Taelas]

Well let's see. Does Rich write rapey, rape apologizing, racist shaggy dog soap operas? I'd say no.

If Rich's work were anything like George R. R. Martin's, I wouldn't be here.

GRRM really doesn't deserve that kind of comment. There is absolutely nothing "rape apologizing" about his work. Yes, it includes the subject, but all characters that have engaged in it have been complete and utter monsters.

It's also not a soap opera. I'm not sure how you could arrive at that conclusion.

As an aside, Martin does not kill off characters unless there is a logical reason behind the death; we're not talking rocks falling out of the sky, here. When people die, they die for a reason.

The idea that Martin offs people all the time for no reason is just not grounded in the books or the show, at all. He kills characters, yes; even characters that have had massive impact on the story. But there's always a solid in-story reason for the deaths.

[SowZ]

Well let's see. Does Rich write rapey, rape apologizing, racist shaggy dog soap operas? I'd say no.

If Rich's work were anything like George R. R. Martin's, I wouldn't be here.

All the rapists in GRRM works tend to die in fairly painful/gruesome ways or else the ones that survive are acknowledged in universe as pretty despicable people. You may think that is cheap/distasteful to use rape and violence like that, but I don't think it is fair to call it rape apologizing. Rapey, I can see.

If you read GRRMs other works, short stories, etc. you get a picture of a pretty nihlistic guy. 'Meathouse Man' is still one of the most depressing things I've ever read.

I don't think GRRMs rape, murder, and rampant racism in his books is something he approves or. It doesn't seem he is trying to make a comment to condemn evil, either. If anything, it strikes me that he has this message of the universe not caring one way or another and all the evil and tragedy that happens just happens, justice may or may not occur, and we should make the best of it and latch onto the few moments of happiness we get because that's all there is and most people are selfish, racist d-bags who would screw you over if they benefited from it so the more you expect out of the world the more you are going to be disappointed in it. If you want to be a truly good person, good on you, you can make the world a slightly better place but you are likely going to have a pretty painful life for it.

It's dismal and not consistent with my world view at all and maybe GRRM would read that and say, "Whoa, SowZ, you have misinterpreted me severely, that isn't my message or worldview." and I'd say," Oh, okay, sorry." But that doesn't mean it justifies rape or torture or anything. He may just use the worst and ugliest things he can as the most dramatic ways to show people the grimness of his setting.

Tying this back into the discussion at hand, I've never really gathered any of those same themes from OOTS. The OOTS world strikes me as one where injustice happens frequently and often perpetuates for a long time, but at the end of it all, good usually triumphs over evil in the end. Most people want to be good people, (even if most people aren't good at being good,) and there are very few people without redeeming qualities. Try your best to do what's right, try to be good to your loved ones, sometimes things still won't pan out for you but doing good is more likely to come around and help you find happiness than doing evil.

Again, maybe I am way reading into it and just applying my own values to the OOTS world and maybe all that I said isn't in the text. But whereas I get a very dark feeling with small pinpricks of light from Westoros, the world of OOTS is one that I see plenty of both light and dark in.

Characters dying are usually a consequence of their own actions and choices coming back to them even if they don't always deserve it, (Big spoilers)like Ned or Robb or Drogo, but occasionally happen as the result of someone else's choices. Doesn't mean it is totally random.

[Sir_Leorik]

No, the first "he" in his quote was me; that I was characteristic of Martin because I killed characters in a soul-crushingly cynical and amoral way. Which I can't even see how you could get that, unless you were rooting for the villains all along. But then that's on you.

I think the "Song of Ice and Fire" world is more "uncaring" in a Lovecraftian sense than "amoral". Either way, comparing the comedic heroic fantasy of "Order of the Stick" to "ASoIaF" is comparing apples to ping pong balls.

[Sir_Leorik]

No, I'm mainly thinking of Storm of Swords where Jon actually starts to learn the things and picks up on when he needs to do what and starts whining less. He makes dumb calls, but those calls come more from not being all too intelligent and doing the best he can with limited smarts in a tough situation, not from being Lawful Stupid. Maybe this isn't the case in number 5..

Jon starts to learn to make the hard calls in "ADoD", but he forgets something very important: the Nightswatch is a very old, very conservative institution, and very old, very conservative institutions do not react well to innovations or change.

[Kish]

All the rapists in GRRM works tend to die in fairly painful/gruesome ways or else the ones that survive are acknowledged in universe as pretty despicable people.
While I am not going to do the obnoxious "fixed that for you" thing, I am going to point out that you could rephrase that sentence to have two fewer words and just as much accuracy, by replacing "All the rapists" with "Everyone."

[FlawedParadigm]

Well, okay, maybe it is possible to discuss it here, but yes, calling it rape-apologising is absolutely unfair. Yes, it is a thing which happens, but it's never glorified, and the only people who even speak of it in a neutral or dispassionate fashion are all bona fide unambiguously horrible people. There is one culture in which it is a war practise, but it's also made very clear that it's not even universally accepted there, and even then the entire story is set in a different time period without modern sensibilities.

In short, it's like a number of other things wherein just because they are mentioned does not mean they are accepted or held forth to be good things, like many other war crimes in other fictions or fictional histories. One could speak of things Sauron did without automatically showing support for those actions.

[Sir_Leorik]

While I am not going to do the obnoxious "fixed that for you" thing, I am going to point out that you could rephrase that sentence to have two fewer words and just as much accuracy, by replacing "All the rapists" with "Everyone."

Not true at all.

Hoster Tully died in bed of old age. Tyrion Lannister has survived exploits that would have killed men three times his size. Arya Stark is doing just fine at the end of "A Dance of Dragons", as is Daenerys. Bran and Rickon are both alive, Bran beyond the Wall learning the secrets of skin walking. Catelyn Stark may have survived the Red Wedding (possibly). Cersei Lannister may wish she's dead, but she's alive and well. And of course Nymeria is still roaming Westeros with a pack of wolves, terrorizing the countryside.

[Shale]

Of those, how many of them are not generally acknowledged as horrible people? Certainly not the Lannisters.

[Sunken Valley]

And I've never killed a developed character where that character's death wasn't a direct result of their own choices.

I checked the entire comic and books to see if this was true. It's true! Everyone in the online comic has died in this manner! I assume that old age is considered "their own choices" (Girard, Soon, Eugene) and that Kubota is not considered developed (his death was a result of V's conclusions). Is this a coincidence or did you sit down and say "all character's must die by their choices".

With one exception to the quoted rule....
Ridizak, Redcloak's Nephew. A developed character who wanted to be a wizard against his dad's wishes but got on well with him and his siblings. A character who defied authority but not to much. A character who respected his uncle greatly. A character who died because he was drafted into an army and killed when his new boss could have saved him at any time.



I almost exclusively want to read about actual heroes being actually heroic.

Do you like reading about heroes who although they are brave, never give up and do good things, rarely ever truly win? Their enemies are far more powerful than them, they do not know very much about the big picture (and neither would we if the author didn't cut to side-characters) and most of their turn-arounds are achieved by dumb luck (a villain decides to double cross another villain right in the middle of a fight) or the aid of others (a mysterious figure saves one hero from certain death at the hands of the main villain). These heroes are considered small fry by the main group of villains and the other villainous groups could destroy them easily but keep them alive because on some level, they will help the villain's futher their own goals. These heroes increasingly get odds stacks against them making look impossible for them to win, even though the author tells us that they will (even though they will not kill the main villain).

Edit: I think you'd like Martin, he writes a complicated story with lots of characters planning things (Like B5 and OOTS)

[Sir_Leorik]

Of those, how many of them are not generally acknowledged as horrible people? Certainly not the Lannisters.

Tyrion Lannister is not perfect, but he's probably the most ethical person in his family. (Of course that's damning with faint praise...)

[The Bushranger]

While I'm certainly not the Giant, I can say that when I want to read about heroes, I want to read about them being heroes - larger than life, big cheeses, they're not pawns in a Xanatian strategy by the villians, they're not "kept alive because the villains find it convienent" - they're heroes, and they're therefore heroic.

I want to see Superman being Superman.

[The Giant]

Like I said, I'm not going to debate the specifics of his work because I haven't read it. But when I see people describe it like this:


If anything, it strikes me that he has this message of the universe not caring one way or another and all the evil and tragedy that happens just happens, justice may or may not occur, and we should make the best of it and latch onto the few moments of happiness we get because that's all there is and most people are selfish, racist d-bags who would screw you over if they benefited from it so the more you expect out of the world the more you are going to be disappointed in it. If you want to be a truly good person, good on you, you can make the world a slightly better place but you are likely going to have a pretty painful life for it.

it occurs to me that I have limited number of hours in my day and I don't need to read thousands of pages to tell me something most of us grasped, internalized, and subsequently rejected when we were teenagers.

It seems to me that writing a huge epic whose message is, "Nothing really matters," is a good way to teach people that nothing really matters, which is pretty much the exact opposite of anything I would ever want to do (or read).

[rgrekejin]

If i may, it has never been about the fact he kills major characters that is so characteristic of Martin , many auithors do it. It's the delighfull soul crushing down to earth cynicism and amorality (meant in the best way) with which it happens. He manage to make good anticlimax, that is pretty damn uncommon.


I don't know how to respond to this except to say that if you feel that my work is amoral and cynical, I've completely failed as a writer.

I'm also pretty certain that smuchmuch is referring to Martin here. Another way to read it might be: It has never been the fact that Martin kills major characters that is so characteristic of him.

And even if his sentence structure is wrong, I still think it's fairly likely that that's what smuchmuch meant. Because "cynical and amoral" is a criticism I've heard levels against Martin on numerous other occasions, and in a multitude of other venues (for my money, it also happens to be an accurate criticism, in addition to a commonplace one). OotS? Cynical and amoral? Never.

[FlawedParadigm]

Whereas I find Superman to be a boring character wherein his victory is not a foregone conclusion because he's the hero, but because he ridiculously outclasses all but the most excessive of threats. He does not - and cannot by definition of being Super-man have enough flaws or weaknesses to be interesting, else he stops being super.

I can't use Batman because he's not always traditionally heroic either. Spider-Man, though, is probably a dandy example. He was heroic, for heroic reasons, but still fallible and human enough to make for interesting reading, and his power level stayed sufficiently below that of thousands of nines. Although I will admit both he and Superman repeatedly made remarks on how they have/had to hold back so as not to accidentally kill bad guys, at least with Spidey it didn't sound as braggy.

(Also, I will point out the previous paragraph does not have tense errors in it, but the reasons for that are spoilers.)

[FlawedParadigm]

Like I said, I'm not going to debate the specifics of his work because I haven't read it. But when I see people describe it like this:



it occurs to me that I have limited number of hours in my day and I don't need to read thousands of pages to tell me something most of us grasped, internalized, and subsequently rejected when we were teenagers.

It seems to me that writing a huge epic whose message is, "Nothing really matters," is a good way to teach people that nothing really matters, which is pretty much the exact opposite of anything I would ever want to do (or read).

I...have no idea how you could have read that quote and come to the conclusion that the message is "nothing really matters." Nor would I at all characterise that as any part of George's writing. "Everything matters" would be closer to the truth, by far.

But anyhow, I'm getting a pretty strong vibe that sight unseen you've already decided you're not going to like George's writing and are looking for every excuse you can grab onto in order to support that decision, so I won't make any more effort to convince you that it's good when your decision has obviously already been made and repeatedly reaffirmed by any means necessary.

[SowZ]

Like I said, I'm not going to debate the specifics of his work because I haven't read it. But when I see people describe it like this:



it occurs to me that I have limited number of hours in my day and I don't need to read thousands of pages to tell me something most of us grasped, internalized, and subsequently rejected when we were teenagers.

It seems to me that writing a huge epic whose message is, "Nothing really matters," is a good way to teach people that nothing really matters, which is pretty much the exact opposite of anything I would ever want to do (or read).

Yeah, I can see that. Martin could be offended by my analysis, though, I'm not sure. I look past the overarching message because I think there are some great characters and a good story in there. But I also understand not wanting to read it because there are plenty of good stories with good characters that aren't as hopeless.

I wouldn't call it pure nihilism, though. More existential, if anything. There is no inherent meaning is pretty apparent in SoIaF, IMO. (Gotta love acronyms!) But people give things meaning to themselves by fighting and dying and loving for it. But just because one person really cares about their ideals, the rest of the world/t he universe doesn't, so it affords you no special privilege. Still depressing, but not entirely nothing matters. I still disagree, though, I think some things have meaning beyond us choosing that it has meaning.

[The Giant]

I checked the entire comic and books to see if this was true. It's true! Everyone in the online comic has died in this manner! I assume that old age is considered "their own choices" (Girard, Soon, Eugene) and that Kubota is not considered developed (his death was a result of V's conclusions).

No one has died of old age in the comic itself. Backstory doesn't count.

And Kubota died because he made a choice to surrender based on his assumption that Hinjo was bound by morality and therefore he would be safe to continue his scheme from inside a courtroom. He made a calculated choice that involved his own safety and got the math wrong—because he didn't count on anyone going outside of Hinjo's laws. In many ways, like Nale; he thought he was untouchable, so he made a bad call.



Is this a coincidence or did you sit down and say "all character's must die by their choices".

I think it's pretty much Storytelling 101, actually. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's how I see it. If the character isn't important enough to die through their own agency, even indirectly, then they're not important enough to learn much about in the first place.

Saangwan is a good example. She totally got killed not as a result of her own choices, except maybe her choice to be there on the wall in the first place. But we also know almost nothing about her. How did she get her powers? Was she born blind? What did she think or feel about what was happening? We don't know. And that's on purpose.


With one exception to the quoted rule....
Ridizak, Redcloak's Nephew. A developed character who wanted to be a wizard against his dad's wishes but got on well with him and his siblings. A character who defied authority but not to much. A character who respected his uncle greatly. A character who died because he was drafted into an army and killed when his new boss could have saved him at any time.

Eh, I suppose, but I don't really count off-screen deaths anyway. We don't know the exact details that got him killed once he was drafted into Xykon's army.

[neriana]

I'm going to reply to a bunch of people at once here...

Treating the feelings of the man closest to the rape victim as more important than those of the rape victim is rape apologizing. Writing mass rape and then having the rape victims be most bothered by the position the rapists used, rather than the rape itself, is rape apologizing. Pretending an eleven-year old can consent to anything sexual is rape apologizing. And it's just not possible to talk about George R. R. Martin without talking about the constant rape in his books -- it's as relentless as his murdering of characters.

It's a soap opera because it's emotionally manipulative, going for unending gut punches (and in the laziest ways at that), and yet nothing really matters.

You may disagree with me. But I think it is very called-for to point out things I find wrong with George R. R. Martin when something like this comes up, considering the tongue baths he gets all the time. It's not that the books aren't to my taste; it's that I find them despicable. The world is not like his work pretends it is. Life is not an amoral grimdark horrible scarey rapetastic charnel house in which no one can make much of a positive difference. One CAN have a reasonably happy life and do good at the same time. In fact, that's the only way to have a reasonably happy life.

[Kish]

Whereas I find Superman to be a boring character wherein his victory is not a foregone conclusion because he's the hero, but because he ridiculously outclasses all but the most excessive of threats.
How fortunate for him, then, that he can pick and choose which threats to oppose and never needs to clash with any enemy more powerful than himself, instead beating up solely on hapless human thugs who never learn not to shoot ordinary lead bullets at him.

...Oh wait.

[Shale]

Seriously, read some good Superman comics. Writers are very aware of the character's power bloat, and they work with it.

Also, I would disagree that the moral of Game of Thrones is "nothing matters" - it's much more along the lines of "war is hell, and everybody loses." In particular, it's about subverting the Fisher King myth, where unseating a tyrannical or usurping king makes everything better for everybody. Even if the "right" king wins, that just makes things better for the nobles who had it pretty good to begin with, while the peasants and soldiers who get caught in the middle just suffer and die.

Granted, that's not necessarily a moral we needed five books and counting to get to. But it's not just nihilism.

[The Giant]

But anyhow, I'm getting a pretty strong vibe that sight unseen you've already decided you're not going to like George's writing and are looking for every excuse you can grab onto in order to support that decision, so I won't make any more effort to convince you that it's good when your decision has obviously already been made and repeatedly reaffirmed by any means necessary.

I think that's an exaggeration, but I think the fact is that finding out whether or not I like it is an investment that is greater than I can afford. I don't have time to read a massively long novel series by anyone right now, so if I'm going to do so, it's not going to be the one that everything I hear about it makes me think I am going to radically disagree with its philosophical underpinnings. That's the whole point of reviews and word-of-mouth. If I had infinite time, it would be reasonable for me to read it even though I don't think I am going to like it, just to keep an open mind and see. I have far, far less than infinite time.

But frankly, the fact that you don't like Superman tells me that our two ideas on what is a good story are never going to align anyway. As a result, your recommendation is working against me having any interest in it.

[SowZ]

I'm going to reply to a bunch of people at once here...

Treating the feelings of the man closest to the rape victim as more important than those of the rape victim is rape apologizing. Writing mass rape and then having the rape victims be most bothered by the position the rapists used, rather than the rape itself, is rape apologizing. Pretending an eleven-year old can consent to anything sexual is rape apologizing. And it's just not possible to talk about George R. R. Martin without talking about the constant rape in his books -- it's as relentless as his murdering of characters.

It's a soap opera because it's emotionally manipulative, going for unending gut punches (and in the laziest ways at that), and yet nothing really matters.

You may disagree with me. But I think it is very called-for to point out things I find wrong with George R. R. Martin when something like this comes up, considering the tongue baths he gets all the time. It's not that the books aren't to my taste; it's that I find them despicable. The world is not like his work pretends it is. Life is not an amoral grimdark horrible scarey rapetastic charnel house in which no one can make much of a positive difference. One CAN have a reasonably happy life and do good at the same time. In fact, that's the only way to have a reasonably happy life.

I don't remember any instance of a rape victim thinking it would have been more tolerable if the attacker had used a different technique or position. If you can point me to a quote on that and aren't taking it out of context I'll agree that's pretty awful. But there is a difference between having a pretty sexist world with a lot of very sexist people and the writer being sexist.

If one character has more sympathy for his friend than his friends sister because his friends sister was raped, he's being a douchebag. That doesn't mean the writer would do the same thing in that situation, or that the writer is advising us to act that way. Honestly, portraying a world where women are openly shamed for being raped and most people think that rape victims at least half way enjoy it is pretty accurate to a medieval setting and all too often accurate to the real world. Creating a fantasy world in which the ethical problems of our own are exaggerated to make them harder to ignore isn't wrong. Its a common tactic.



As far as investment, watching the show would be a far lower time investment, but a greater financial one. Also, to draw in viewers the first season was pretty pornographic. After they had their viewership, they turned the sexiness waaay down but I actually did think the hyper sexualization and five minute long orgies was cheap and unnecessary. Good show over all, but that very reason, (season 1 porn time,) is why I rarely get into HBO.



On the Superman topic, he isn't nearly as overpowered as people think. He can do ridiculous feats of strength, but the DC universe is basically a universe where heroes are gods and demi-gods. Superman by Marvel standards is OP. By DC standards? Shoot, he'd lose a fight, (and does, occasionally,) to a third of justice league. There are plenty of challenges for him.

There was a time in the 70s when he was running around blowing out stars like candles but most of that was retconned, anyway.

[Diadem]

I don't know how to respond to this except to say that if you feel that my work is amoral and cynical, I've completely failed as a writer.
I really think you have misinterpreted this remark by smuchmuch. I don't know if it's grammatically correct, but smuchmuch clearly meant to refer to Martin.

I actually see a lot of similarities between your work and Martin's, at least when it comes to deaths of major characters. The difference between your and Martin's work and most fantasy, is that in most fantasy the heroes have 10 inch plot armor, and if they do die, it's in a heroic final battle. Take Lord of the Rings. Not only does almost everybody of any note survive, the only two that don't (Boromir and Theodin) die extremely heroic deaths. Heck even villain deaths are generally heroic.

Contrast this with OOTS. Like you said yourself, people die because of their choices. Roy died because he fell to his death after jumping onto a hostile flying dragon with no exit plan. Makes a lot of sense, I mean, what did he expect would happen? But in most fantasy, the heroes routinely do stuff like that, and always survive, because they are the heroes.

The OOTS is more realistic. Major characters have less plot armor, so they die if they do stupid things. The most painful examples are Tsukiko and Nale. In Redcloak's words: "If you're going to be that stupid, there can only be one rational response to that".

Game of Thrones / A Song of Ice and Fire is very similar. Martin doesn't randomly kill of his characters. Like in OOTS, every single death is due to choices made by the character themselves. There is just very little plot armor, so even important characters die if they make the wrong choices.

The major difference between the two of you is that Martin doesn't just kill of his characters. He destroys them. Ned doesn't just die. He first loses his friend, then his family, and is then forced to dishonour himself (while honour was his most important motivation up to that point), and only then does he get executed. It's all very realistic, but yes, gritty. This makes these deaths very memorable, even if the actual death count really isn't that high. And that is I think what smuchmuch was referring to in his remark.

As a final note: While OOTS and Game of Thrones are very similar in their lack of plot armor, they are very different in almost every other way. OOTS is heroic comedy. GoT is a thorough deconstruction of the fantasy genre. I think both are worth reading, but they are solidly in different genres.

[FlawedParadigm]

Treating the feelings of the man closest to the rape victim as more important than those of the rape victim is rape apologizing.

Please PM me page numbers where this occurs and in what book, because I certainly remember nothing of the sort.


Writing mass rape and then having the rape victims be most bothered by the position the rapists used, rather than the rape itself, is rape apologizing.

Same here. I can only even think of one thing even remotely close to what you're describing having happened, and if it's the same, then it did not happen the way you're describing it.


Pretending an eleven-year old can consent to anything sexual is rape apologizing.

All I can say here is that 1) this is younger than any consenting character ever was in the books (youngest was thirteen last I ever knew) and 2) I can't say anything else about this without making references to real world culture but maybe someone else can.


And it's just not possible to talk about George R. R. Martin without talking about the constant rape in his books -- it's as relentless as his murdering of characters.

Maybe it's not possible for you but I personally know a good half dozen or more people perfectly capable of discussing him without talking about that at all. That's without even participating in any GRRM-related forums.


It's a soap opera because it's emotionally manipulative, going for unending gut punches (and in the laziest ways at that), and yet nothing really matters.

We're clearly not even reading the same books at this point.


You may disagree with me. But I think it is very called-for to point out things I find wrong with George R. R. Martin when something like this comes up, considering the tongue baths he gets all the time.

It would be called-for if your arguments had a strong basis in reality. However, they do not. You have some mild connections and muddled-up numbers and probably some misread or misremembered passages.


It's not that the books aren't to my taste; it's that I find them despicable. The world is not like his work pretends it is.

Well, no. That's why it's fiction. Although if you don't think the world was as bad or worse of a place when it was at a similar technological/social level, I can only guess you've gotten your history lessons from Walt Disney. I'll say no more about that due to real world et cetera.


Life is not an amoral grimdark horrible scarey rapetastic charnel house in which no one can make much of a positive difference.

I think you've mixed up the Gor books with the Song of Ice and Fire books, actually. Also, don't ever read those if you find GRRM at all discomforting. I have a strong suspicion from your posts in this thread that those books would outright kill you (also, they're horrible - I mention them only to warn you very sincerely to stay away from them.)

[The Giant]

Contrast this with OOTS. Like you said yourself, people die because of their choices. Roy died because he fell to his death after jumping onto a hostile flying dragon with no exit plan. Makes a lot of sense, I mean, what did he expect would happen? But in most fantasy, the heroes routinely do stuff like that, and always survive, because they are the heroes.

Last time I checked, Roy is still up and walking around. So I think maybe OOTS is a little closer to the "traditional fantasy" than you're giving it credit for.

[pendell]

I think that's an exaggeration, but I think the fact is that finding out whether or not I like it is an investment that is greater than I can afford. I don't have time to read a massively long novel series by anyone right now, so if I'm going to do so, it's not going to be the one that everything I hear about it makes me think I am going to radically disagree with its philosophical underpinnings. That's the whole point of reviews and word-of-mouth. If I had infinite time, it would be reasonable for me to read it even though I don't think I am going to like it, just to keep an open mind and see. I have far, far less than infinite time.

But frankly, the fact that you don't like Superman tells me that our two ideas on what is a good story are never going to align anyway. As a result, your recommendation is working against me having any interest in it.

Well, *I* recommend Terry Pratchett's discworld series. Especially the Vimes novels such as "Night Watch" or Death novels such as "Reaper Man".

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[SowZ]

Well, *I* recommend Terry Pratchett's discworld series. Especially the Vimes novels such as "Night Watch" or Death novels such as "Reaper Man".

Respectfully,

Brian P.

And *I* recommend Good Omens. Not because it is particularly relevant or even in the right genre, but the mention of Terry Pratchett was enough of an in and I'll recommend that book whenever possible. I'll try to keep myself from recommending other Gaiman because I am in danger of listing off X-1 books, where X is anything he has ever written.

[The Giant]

On the Superman topic, he isn't nearly as overpowered as people think. He can do ridiculous feats of strength, but the DC universe is basically a universe where heroes are gods and demi-gods. Superman by Marvel standards is OP. By DC standards? Shoot, he'd lose a fight, (and does, occasionally,) to a third of justice league. There are plenty of challenges for him.

But see, this isn't really the point. If the only thing a writer can do with Superman is introduce a threat even more powerful, they've already failed. The crux of Superman is that he is a being of immense power whose limitations are entirely internal. He is bound not by the laws of physics, but by the laws of man. By his own moral compass.

As far back as Plato and his story of the Ring of Gyges, philosophers have debated whether or not a man who was free from the physical constraints of society could be virtuous. If a man was invisible, it was argued, clearly he would run around doing whatever thing he could get away with because society could not stop him, and therefore justice was a social construct only. Socrates rejects that point, saying that justice exists whether or not society is able to enforce it, and the man who abuses the Ring would be miserable with his power, while the man who resists its temptations would be happy in his abstinence.

That's Superman.

That's it. That's what matters about the character. That's why his archenemy isn't the guy who's stronger than him, it's the guy who has no compunctions about violating society's rules in plain sight. And that's why the true limitation on Superman is that he can't do the same thing.

Once you reduce Superman to issues of his exact power level, you've lost sight of what the point of the character really is.

[SowZ]

But see, this isn't really the point. If the only thing a writer can do with Superman is introduce a threat even more powerful, they've already failed. The crux of Superman is that he is a being of immense power whose limitations are entirely internal. He is bound not by the laws of physics, but by the laws of man. By his own moral compass.

As far back as Plato and his story of the Ring of Gyges, philosophers have debated whether or not a man who was free from the physical constraints of society could be virtuous. If a man was invisible, it was argued, clearly he would run around doing whatever thing he could get away with because society could not stop him, and therefore justice was a social construct only. Socrates rejects that point, saying that justice exists whether or not society is able to enforce it, and the man who abuses the Ring would be miserable with his power, while the man who resists its temptations would be happy in his abstinence.

That's Superman.

That's it. That's what matters about the character. That's why his archenemy isn't the guy who's stronger than him, it's the guy who has no compunctions about violating society's rules in plain sight. And that's why the true limitation on Superman is that he can't do the same thing.

Once you reduce Superman to issues of his exact power level, you've lost sight of what the point of the character really is.

That's a good point. I've never thought about the ring of gyges in regards to Superman. Looking over all of it, my favorite Superman stories aren't ones where he faces Superman+1. It's the stories where Superman could end the problem by just throwing it into the sun. But that wouldn't really solve the problem, at least not in a way acceptable to Superman, so he has to find another way.

[Shale]

There's merit to giving Superman enemies who can match his physical power, just because not every villain can be Lex Luthor - when you've got a super-strong, super-fast, invulnerable flying alien who shoots lasers out of his eyes, he's gotta fight somebody with superpowers sooner or later, if only to make sure he can't just grab the guy and bodily deposit him in jail. But again, the moral conflict is still more important than the physical side. Darkseid, for instance, is a great foe for Superman because he's the god of EVIL, not because he's the GOD of evil. If that makes sense.

[Diadem]

Last time I checked, Roy is still up and walking around.
So's Durkon :)

(Sorry, I couldn't resist).

But you make a very good point. And most deaths in OOTS have been villains anyway. It's strange though. When you read LOTR for example you know from the start roughly how it's going to end, and certainly that it will end well. But when I read OOTS I still feel like I'm reading a story that might end badly, even though you've explicitly said it won't. Perhaps you're just a very good writer.

[MtlGuy]

I don't buy the "all good is stupid good" in Martin's writing. Those familiar with The Kingbreaker in Dance know who I mean.

Maybe he's seen Mel Brooks' Spaceballs too many times... or Richard the Third (w/Timothy Dalton!). Idk, when I read comic 913, I made the joke, that yeah, the body count was approaching something on par with a Martin novel, but that was just for laughs.

[Taelas]

Last time I checked, Roy is still up and walking around. So I think maybe OOTS is a little closer to the "traditional fantasy" than you're giving it credit for.

From this I take it that had raise dead and similar magic not been part of the game, Roy would never have gotten himself into the situation that got him killed. (Which is a fair point.)

But it's easy to forget about all that when you first see those crosses where a character's eyes should be, and you know what they say about first impressions...

In ASOIAF, death isn't always permanent either. Though Martin's "resurrection" is about as gritty and 'realistic' (as much as such can be) as the rest of the magic in the story.

If I were to liken heroic fantasy to Superman, I'd liken Martin's work to Frank Miller's Batman. Darker, grittier, and less obviously supernatural.

[SowZ]

So's Durkon :)

(Sorry, I couldn't resist).

But you make a very good point. And most deaths in OOTS have been villains anyway. It's strange though. When you read LOTR for example you know from the start roughly how it's going to end, and certainly that it will end well. But when I read OOTS I still feel like I'm reading a story that might end badly, even though you've explicitly said it won't. Perhaps you're just a very good writer.

I know it won't end with the universe ending. I know Elan, so probably Haley, will be happy. I fear for everyone else. V could easily end up in Hell. Shoot, so could Durkon in his won way, but that would royally piss everyone off so much I doubt Rich would do it. What Rich will do with Durkon, I don't know, though.

Belkar will probably get it bad. Roy I don't know. I could see Roy hanging up the sword and earning peace. I could see him continuing to be a hero. I could see him dying fulfilling his oath.

I know the world will end well. I don't know who will end up okay. That's the suspense that keeps me there. In aSoIaF I wouldn't be all that surprised if the White Walkers won. Though I expect Danny to end up on top when all is aid and done. I don't know anything that happens in the most recent book though, so, yeah. Pretty tame spoiler, but I figured it couldn't hurt.

[NerdyKris]

On the Superman topic, he isn't nearly as overpowered as people think. He can do ridiculous feats of strength, but the DC universe is basically a universe where heroes are gods and demi-gods. Superman by Marvel standards is OP. By DC standards? Shoot, he'd lose a fight, (and does, occasionally,) to a third of justice league. There are plenty of challenges for him.


A theme wonderfully explored in Justice League Vs Avengers in 2000-ish. The respective teams are manipulated to see the other's world in a specific way. The Avengers accuse the JLA of being gods and lording it over the populace (monuments, the Flash museum), and the JLA see the Avengers as failing to stop evil. (Hulk on a rampage, Latveria, Genosha).

By the end, Superman makes a speech about how the Marvel universe has heroes that overcome their physical limitations to do good (and how much worse Marvel tends to have it), and Cap makes Rich's statement above, that DC involves god like beings doing what's right because they can.

Seriously, that mini series was unexpectedly insightful writing, and did not turn into a cheap fight between teams.

[rgrekejin]

That's Superman.

That's it. That's what matters about the character. That's why his archenemy isn't the guy who's stronger than him, it's the guy who has no compunctions about violating society's rules in plain sight. And that's why the true limitation on Superman is that he can't do the same thing.

Once you reduce Superman to issues of his exact power level, you've lost sight of what the point of the character really is.

For a good illustration of this point, I strongly recommend the Superman story "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?"

...why yes, it does also happen to be my favorite comic ever written, why do you ask?

[The Giant]

There's merit to giving Superman enemies who can match his physical power, just because not every villain can be Lex Luthor - when you've got a super-strong, super-fast, invulnerable flying alien who shoots lasers out of his eyes, he's gotta fight somebody with superpowers sooner or later, if only to make sure he can't just grab the guy and bodily deposit him in jail. But again, the moral conflict is still more important than the physical side. Darkseid, for instance, is a great foe for Superman because he's the god of EVIL, not because he's the GOD of evil. If that makes sense.

Agreed, but Darkseid is a great example because he challenges Superman's devotion to the rule of law. Darkseid is the question, "What does Superman do when the laws are unjust?" Because Darkseid is functionally undefeatable; what Superman must defeat is the idea of Darkseid, the idea of slavishly following his cruel dictates just because. He can punch every war dog on Apocalypse, but the huddled masses will still call out for Darkseid.

If Superman and Darkseid himself come to blows, though, it's probably not a very good story.


If I were to liken heroic fantasy to Superman, I'd liken Martin's work to Frank Miller's Batman. Darker, grittier, and less obviously supernatural.

And see, I despise Frank Miller and everything he's ever written. Even when the story is acceptable, I find his conclusions generally repugnant. (Plus, yknow, misogyny.)


A theme wonderfully explored in Justice League Vs Avengers in 2000-ish. The respective teams are manipulated to see the other's world in a specific way. The Avengers accuse the JLA of being gods and lording it over the populace (monuments, the Flash museum), and the JLA see the Avengers as failing to stop evil. (Hulk on a rampage, Latveria, Genosha).

By the end, Superman makes a speech about how the Marvel universe has heroes that overcome their physical limitations to do good (and how much worse Marvel tends to have it), and Cap makes Rich's statement above, that DC involves god like beings doing what's right because they can.

Seriously, that mini series was unexpectedly insightful writing, and did not turn into a cheap fight between teams.

I loved the heck out of that series. Really well done, considering how trite it could have been.

EDIT:

For a good illustration of this point, I strongly recommend the Superman story "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?"

One of the best Superman stories ever written, and certainly formative to my ideas expressed above about the character.

[Diadem]

Agreed, but Darkseid is a great example because he challenges Superman's devotion to the rule of law. Darkseid is the question, "What does Superman do when the laws are unjust?" Because Darkseid is functionally undefeatable; what Superman must defeat is the idea of Darkseid, the idea of slavishly following his cruel dictates just because. He can punch every war dog on Apocalypse, but the huddled masses will still call out for Darkseid.

If Superman and Darkseid himself come to blows, though, it's probably not a very good story.
You know, I've only ever read a few comics. I haven't read any superman, and very little of any DC character. Sometimes I'm tempted to pick them up, especially when reading threads / comments like this.

But then I go to the wikipedia page on Darkseid, and this what i read:


As prophesied, Orion returns to Earth via Boom Tube for his final battle with Darkseid. During the massive fight, Orion ultimately kills him by ripping his heart out, creating a firepit of Apokolips from Darkseid's chest cavity (in reference to the prophecy of their final battle). As Darkseid dies, a battered, wounded Orion walks away from the battlefield having "won" the battle against his father once and for all. However, Darkseid's life essence endured even the death of his body and fell back in time, where he was reborn as "Boss Dark Side", aided by his resurrected minions and the supervillain Libra.
Now, once again bound to the form of a human, "Boss Dark Side" began to appear in a number of titles in the run up to Final Crisis. In Flash (vol. 2) #240, he led an army of fanatics, their will broken by the "spoken form" of the Anti-Life Equation, to kidnap the Tornado Twins. In Birds of Prey #118, he runs his Dark Side Club where superhumans fight to the death, brainwashed by drugs produced by Bernadeth. In Teen Titans #59, it was revealed that he had employed the Terror Titans to capture the Teen Titans and use them in his club fights.
In Final Crisis, Darkseid has begun to take over Earth and corrupt the Multiverse with the aid of his herald Libra, a reborn supervillain and antichrist-like figure who soon converts much of the Secret Society of Super Villains to his cause with the aid of the Crime Bible and the Holy Lance. Darkseid is also joined by the souls of his fellow evil New Gods, who, like Darkseid, now possess either modified human bodies or the bodies of other superpowered beings, such as Mary Marvel.
Sjeesh. That makes twilight sound appealing.

Can someone explain what the attraction is of stories like that?

[The Bushranger]

^ The comics are rather hit-or-miss. I'd strongly reccomend the Justice League cartoon, though.


If Superman and Darkseid himself come to blows, though, it's probably not a very good story.
Well, it depends on the circumstance, of course - speaking of JL/JLU, the "World of Cardboard" moment was pretty epic.


But see, this isn't really the point. If the only thing a writer can do with Superman is introduce a threat even more powerful, they've already failed.
And that's why I quit reading Green Lantern, actually - all the stories seemed to wind up as "the Guardians are *****, here's a bigger and meaner threat the Guardians, being *****, created!". You still got some nice character moments occasionally - like when John Stewart was showing Qurina Vint that diplomacy, not force, was the answer - but it gets buried in Power Overwheming. Ugh.

[SowZ]

You know, I've only ever read a few comics. I haven't read any superman, and very little of any DC character. Sometimes I'm tempted to pick them up, especially when reading threads / comments like this.

But then I go to the wikipedia page on Darkseid, and this what i read:


Sjeesh. That makes twilight sound appealing.

Can someone explain what the attraction is of stories like that?

Like most stories, I think how good or bad it is depends on execution. Heck, a story about Vampires who move from town to town every fifty years but cycle the same few towns until one of them finds some girl who is immune to his abilities and is intrigued could be good if it was well told. But the concept lends itself to sappy, sexist, trite teen romance that it is unlikely to be good. Still, a bad concept told well with good characters is far better than a good concept told poorly with flat characters.

[Taelas]

And see, I despise Frank Miller and everything he's ever written. Even when the story is acceptable, I find his conclusions generally repugnant. (Plus, yknow, misogyny.)

I didn't say it was anything near a perfect analogy. But then, I wouldn't liken heroic fantasy to Superman, either. :smalltongue: It's simply the closest thing I could think of in terms of superheroes.

As for misogyny, Martin has several excellent strong female characters (including villains). I certainly wouldn't call him misogynistic. (Miller, well, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax; can't disagree there.)

To clarify, I was speaking of Batman: Year One in particular, not his later work (which I haven't read, therefore cannot comment on).

[SowZ]

^ The comics are rather hit-or-miss. I'd strongly reccomend the Justice League cartoon, though.


Well, it depends on the circumstance, of course - speaking of JL/JLU, the "World of Cardboard" moment was pretty epic.


And that's why I quit reading Green Lantern, actually - all the stories seemed to wind up as "the Guardians are *****, here's a bigger and meaner threat the Guardians, being *****, created!". You still got some nice character moments occasionally - like when John Stewart was showing Qurina Vint that diplomacy, not force, was the answer - but it gets buried in Power Overwheming. Ugh.

Which is exactly why, despite liking the style, I very rarely get that into Japanese shonen anime/manga. It is so often about making a Villain plus 1 and then +2, +3, +999.


I didn't say it was anything near a perfect analogy. But then, I wouldn't liken heroic fantasy to Superman, either. :smalltongue: It's simply the closest thing I could think of in terms of superheroes.

As for misogyny, Martin has several excellent strong female characters (including villains). I certainly wouldn't call him misogynistic. (Miller, well, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax; can't disagree there.)

To clarify, I was speaking of Batman: Year One in particular, not his later work (which I haven't read, therefore cannot comment on).

I think Miller created an interesting picture of Batman himself with his most famous work, "The Dark Knight Returns." Batman himself is an intriguing character, well explored. My favorite depiction of Batman is unsurprisingly Neil Gaiman, though.

[King of Nowhere]

You know, I've only ever read a few comics. I haven't read any superman, and very little of any DC character. Sometimes I'm tempted to pick them up, especially when reading threads / comments like this.

But then I go to the wikipedia page on Darkseid, and this what i read:


Sjeesh. That makes twilight sound appealing.

Can someone explain what the attraction is of stories like that?

Huh. I never read that stuff, and certainly I won't feel tempted by that...

But I think EVERY fantasy story will look like that when you only read the plot summed up. I think of all my favourites, and none of them fares better.
I mean, think about oots: a lich is out to conquer the world by controlling a hyper-powerful monster, and a band of heroes is out there to stop him. All set in a world were gaming rules superseed most of physics.
Described that way, it seems a crappy bunch of cliches, not the great story we're all liking. I guess the difference is in the details, in how well the characters are flashed, if the cliches are just such or are twisted enough to become intersting, if the plot actuay makes sense or is just a collection of stuff happening. That sort of things.

[Zerter]

I get that George Martin is somehow the main guy in fantasy nowadays because HBO decided to make a (awesome) TV show using his work. But have most people actually read the books? Because I would pick this comic over those any day. The different POVs work better for televisions, they become really gimmicky and boring later on with me skipping over the characters I dont find interesting. And he does not kill people at random, the most popular people stay alive. The dwarf, Arya, the dragon chick. Yes, he kills Ned Stark and the red wedding happens. But you know what, none of the characters involved in those were really that interesting with the exception of the wife, and she comes back to life (SPOILER ALERT).

A lot of the other killing are pretty standard narrative thingies. Like Joffrey getting killed who is set up for it from moment 1, father figures getting killed, red shirts (the Dwarves whore for example) getting killed.

And you know, rape/torture/mutilation great shock value, but I could have lived without ever getting introduced to Reek. He adds nothing to my life and if I have to see him on television I am fastforwarding, you can get similiar stories by googling some bad words and shutting down parental filters.

Not that Game of Thrones is all bad, but it just is not that great either. And there most definitely is plot armor, I will take that back if Arya Stark gets killed by a random crossbow bolt, but you know what? That is not going to happen. It is going to happen to some named redshirt to get the impression going there is no plot armor.

[Knight.Anon]

I hear that Thog is going to get killed again later this week. Six hours later there will be 30 pages of comments on it.

[mhsmith]

Well, to be fair, Sangwaan, General Chang, and most of the Sapphire Guard weren't major characters, or even characters with the level of importance of, say, Zz'dtri. And it's not like Roy was intended to stay dead.

Actually, I don't think there's a single important character who ever dies in a battle in ASOIAF. Battles are bad for nameless mooks but if you're important you're going to get murdered, not die semi-valorously in battle. This plot tendency gets lampshaded from time to time as well.


...

As a final note: While OOTS and Game of Thrones are very similar in their lack of plot armor, they are very different in almost every other way. OOTS is heroic comedy. GoT is a thorough deconstruction of the fantasy genre. I think both are worth reading, but they are solidly in different genres.

+1


...
And I've never killed a developed character where that character's death wasn't a direct result of their own choices.

THAT (and the lack of blatant plot armor) is definitely something OOTS and ASOIAF largely have in common (I wouldn't say "never" for GRRM [for instance, the book 5 end is someone dying by bad luck / unforeseeable event]... but almost always characters dig their own graves). There really aren't many other things though.


It's kind of a, "Anyone can die, the universe is cold and does not do things for dramatic convention, to resolve plot threads, or to give justice to villians/rewards to heroes. Thing just happen. So you should be scared for your favorite character when they are in battle. Plot armor doesn't exist, or if it does, it only does for a few characters and even then it is only a crappy suit of leather."

I wouldn't go quite that far. There ARE good guys and bad guys to some extent, but almost no one is completely good or totally evil (and anyone falling on either side tends to be eliminated because they don't have much judgement). What matters most for his characters is basic competence rather than just rewarding alignment.

It's also worth noting that we're barely past the midpoint of the series, so it's quite premature to think that he won't give justice to villains.



...
And you know, rape/torture/mutilation great shock value, but I could have lived without ever getting introduced to Reek. He adds nothing to my life and if I have to see him on television I am fastforwarding, you can get similiar stories by googling some bad words and shutting down parental filters.


Definitely agree on Reek. But a lot of that is on the TV guys. In the books, you don't see Theon at all from when he loses at Winterfell until book 5, where he's already broken (and you get what happened to him, but it's not overemphasized IMO). In the TV show, they just go all out into torture porn (over and over and over again), really for no good reason. I can't blame GRRM for that one.


Not really but he does seem to think that Lawful Good = Lawful Stupid, 100% of the time.

I strongly disagree. One point GRRM does seem to make is that "Lawful" doesn't mean very much when the values that society holds are broken. Jaime (CN to CG even though he seems CE at first glance) is a great example of this.

An even better example is an important point in book one (which the TV series totally ignores for no good reason) where Ned (the book one "Big Good") is confronted by Littlefinger with the inevitable consequences of the choices he's making. He's told flat out that if he chooses to try and put Stannis on the throne, most of the kingdom will rise in revolt and countless number of innocents will die. HE DOES SO ANYWAY.

He's a nice guy, cares for his family, all that stuff, but at the end of the day, he's perfectly willing to sacrifice untold number of innocents because the rules he wants to follow say that he should. In other words, choosing Law over Good in the most important moment of his life (which kind of suggests LN rather than LG). That's the karmic moment where he frankly deserved to lose his plot armor, even if you don't think his stupidity up to that point was enough.

Robb Stark is probably the best "LG = stupid" example, though I think part of GRMM's point here is that modern values DON'T just plug and play into a medieval society. You have to bend to the society you're in, or at least find functional ways of changing behavior instead of just executing people you see as evil.

As a contrast, Davos (Stannis's right hand man) is just as Lawful Good as, say, Roy (some chaotic tendencies, but takes responsibility, has a strong set of beliefs that he adheres to, etc.). He constantly tries to do the right thing and help people, even as he is stuck in service to a lord who's pretty obviously unworthy (Stannis is probably LN, though if you want to argue he shades a bit evil I won't fight you hard on it). And guess what? He suffers at times from his choices, but he's still alive (and arguably has bought some plot armor due to karma).


I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that one BIG way GRRM differs from the vast majority of writers in many genres, especially fantasy, is his treatment of female characters. They're legitimate, well-developed characters, not just props to help develop male leads (no Women in Refrigerators here). For all the criticism (some deserved) he gets for going way deep into a world that is at times grimdark, he merits praise for consistently choosing to not take the cheap and easy route here.

[The Giant]

You know, I've only ever read a few comics. I haven't read any superman, and very little of any DC character. Sometimes I'm tempted to pick them up, especially when reading threads / comments like this.

But then I go to the wikipedia page on Darkseid, and this what i read:


Sjeesh. That makes twilight sound appealing.

Can someone explain what the attraction is of stories like that?

I think the thing to realize is that there have been a LOT of stories about these characters, and only some of them truly realize their potential. As SowZ said, you often have better luck with adaptations to other media, because they can distill the essence of the character and provide closure that comics aren't allowed to have (because DC needs them to continue forever). EDIT: Then again, the Green Lantern movie happened.

That said, while Final Crisis was better than that blurb makes it sound, it is not something I would pick as one of the best Darkseid stories. It's Grant Morrison, so, expect some weirdness.

[SowZ]

I get that George Martin is somehow the main guy in fantasy nowadays because HBO decided to make a (awesome) TV show using his work. But have most people actually read the books? Because I would pick this comic over those any day. The different POVs work better for televisions, they become really gimmicky and boring later on with me skipping over the characters I dont find interesting. And he does not kill people at random, the most popular people stay alive. The dwarf, Arya, the dragon chick. Yes, he kills Ned Stark and the red wedding happens. But you know what, none of the characters involved in those were really that interesting with the exception of the wife, and she comes back to life (SPOILER ALERT).

A lot of the other killing are pretty standard narrative thingies. Like Joffrey getting killed who is set up for it from moment 1, father figures getting killed, red shirts (the Dwarves whore for example) getting killed.

And you know, rape/torture/mutilation great shock value, but I could have lived without ever getting introduced to Reek. He adds nothing to my life and if I have to see him on television I am fastforwarding, you can get similiar stories by googling some bad words and shutting down parental filters.

Not that Game of Thrones is all bad, but it just is not that great either. And there most definitely is plot armor, I will take that back if Arya Stark gets killed by a random crossbow bolt, but you know what? That is not going to happen. It is going to happen to some named redshirt to get the impression going there is no plot armor.

'Characters generally aren't going to be killed until they've served their narrative purpose, but that might mean they die early on or half way through the series or right near the end,' isn't really plot armor. Yeah, Arya isn't going to die until she's done whatever it is built up to her doing. But that doesn't mean she has plot armor, it just means GRRM isn't going to literally roll dice to see who is going to die.

The show actually does some things more gruesomely than the books did, like the Reek plot line.

[FlawedParadigm]

I think that's an exaggeration, but I think the fact is that finding out whether or not I like it is an investment that is greater than I can afford. I don't have time to read a massively long novel series by anyone right now, so if I'm going to do so, it's not going to be the one that everything I hear about it makes me think I am going to radically disagree with its philosophical underpinnings. That's the whole point of reviews and word-of-mouth. If I had infinite time, it would be reasonable for me to read it even though I don't think I am going to like it, just to keep an open mind and see. I have far, far less than infinite time.

But frankly, the fact that you don't like Superman tells me that our two ideas on what is a good story are never going to align anyway. As a result, your recommendation is working against me having any interest in it.

It's hard to discuss things directly with you because I know you've had to pick up certain reading habits to not be driven insane by this particular forum. I am tangentially aware of your time restraints and I would probably cite that as your number one best reason for not engaging in Martin's writing any time soon unless it's something like "reading while eating dinner" or something (I read during all meals, but your habits are neither within my knowledge nor my business.) I will say that most of the chapters between points of view are fairly short and lend themselves to being read in small portions fairly well. There's very, very few (if any) sections like in, say, Don Quixote, where you go four pages without a paragraph break or anything.

Related to the above comment about your reading habits, I also should have distinguished more clearly that I don't like Superman as a character but that doesn't mean I don't like some stories that have been written with or about him. He's a challenging character to write for however and it's a lot easier to make (what I consider) to be mistakes with him than to write (what I consider) to be well-written stories with him. But don't get me wrong - it does happen. But that's more a credit to the stories and writers than the character itself.

I'm not sure of what exactly you've heard about his writing, but the parts that you have mentioned having heard are not consistent with my own experiences or, perhaps, interpretations. But I see enough parallels in the work of both of you - not to suggest that they're intentional, and for reasons other than those some are citing, but which I won't divulge for spoiler reasons - that as I said, it had simply never occurred to me that maybe you hadn't read his work. Yes, he tells a darker story than you're telling, in many ways, but it never seemed to me (with one spoilery exception) that any scene or character was written specifically with shock value or excessive grittiness in mind.

I'll also say that when I first picked up the series, I read about a third of the way through the first book, and a combination of confusion and being overwhelmed forced me to start over, but upon re-reading, I have become a fan since. The characters are well-done, believable, flawed, idiosyncratic, and all the important ones are deep. The setting is as detailed as, for example, Tolkien's work, but without the thinly-dimensioned characters.

TL;DR - I'm not saying you will or won't like it, I'm just suggesting that I do not think that if you were to pick it up at some point, probably after when Kickstarter obligations are fulfilled and your schedule is somewhat less crazy, that it would be time wasted to at least give it a try. If you got a third of the way through the first book and decided it wasn't for you, I'd totally understand. You just made it sound as if you were resolved against even considering the idea of trying, as I read it.

[SowZ]

I think the thing to realize is that there have been a LOT of stories about these characters, and only some of them truly realize their potential. As SowZ said, you often have better luck with adaptations to other media, because they can distill the essence of the character and provide closure that comics aren't allowed to have (because DC needs them to continue forever). EDIT: Then again, the Green Lantern movie happened.

That said, while Final Crisis was better than that blurb makes it sound, it is not something I would pick as one of the best Darkseid stories. It's Grant Morrison, so, expect some weirdness.

Yeah, saying you don't like Superman is kind of like saying you don't like Alice in Wonderland inspired stories or retellings. Maybe nothing about the idea of Alice in Wonderland is intriguing to you and you won't like any of them. But more than likely, that story has been told so many different times in so many different ways you will like at least one or two of them.

Superman in Action Comics and Superman in the early 70s and Superman post-crisis and Superman in the New 52 are all very different characters.

[FlawedParadigm]

I get that George Martin is somehow the main guy in fantasy nowadays because HBO decided to make a (awesome) TV show using his work. But have most people actually read the books? Because I would pick this comic over those any day. The different POVs work better for televisions, they become really gimmicky and boring later on with me skipping over the characters I dont find interesting. And he does not kill people at random, the most popular people stay alive. The dwarf, Arya, the dragon chick. Yes, he kills Ned Stark and the red wedding happens. But you know what, none of the characters involved in those were really that interesting with the exception of the wife, and she comes back to life (SPOILER ALERT).

A lot of the other killing are pretty standard narrative thingies. Like Joffrey getting killed who is set up for it from moment 1, father figures getting killed, red shirts (the Dwarves whore for example) getting killed.

And you know, rape/torture/mutilation great shock value, but I could have lived without ever getting introduced to Reek. He adds nothing to my life and if I have to see him on television I am fastforwarding, you can get similiar stories by googling some bad words and shutting down parental filters.

Not that Game of Thrones is all bad, but it just is not that great either. And there most definitely is plot armor, I will take that back if Arya Stark gets killed by a random crossbow bolt, but you know what? That is not going to happen. It is going to happen to some named redshirt to get the impression going there is no plot armor.

Uh, that's a LOT of unmarked spoilers there, stuff that hasn't even happened in the show included.

[ti'esar]

Actually, I don't think there's a single important character who ever dies in a battle in ASOIAF. Battles are bad for nameless mooks but if you're important you're going to get murdered, not die semi-valorously in battle. This plot tendency gets lampshaded from time to time as well.

I wasn't saying anything about ASoIaF there. Just that I don't think the character deaths during the Battle of Azure City really compare to the character deaths of this current story arc.

[Sunken Valley]

Eh, I suppose, but I don't really count off-screen deaths anyway. We don't know the exact details that got him killed once he was drafted into Xykon's army.

Ridizak was not killed off-screen. It was a flashback but we clearly see him being struck down by a swordsman with his mum and brother. Although whether he attacked the party of adventurers trying to kill Xykon first is unknown...

It's really odd that Rich likes the all powerful DC heroes who do good because they are all-powerful when what he writes is the opposite. The order are always out of their depth facing villains way more powerful who consider them inconsequential. Many of their victories are accomplished by luck and villain's tripping over themselves. But yet they still carry on no matter how much is thrown at them. Opposite to DC.

EDIT: any Babylon 5 + GRRM fans in the audience tonight who can compare them (give the Giant some positive recommendations for something he won't actually look at).

[SowZ]

Ridizak was not killed off-screen. It was a flashback but we clearly see him being struck down by a swordsman with his mum and brother. Although whether he attacked the party of adventurers trying to kill Xykon first is unknown...

It's really odd that Rich likes the all powerful DC heroes who do good because they are all-powerful when what he writes is the opposite. The order are always out of their depth facing villains way more powerful who consider them inconsequential. Many of their victories are accomplished by luck and villain's tripping over themselves. But yet they still carry on no matter how much is thrown at them. Opposite to DC.

It's an interesting observation. Not too surprising, though. My favorite genre is dark comedy and I like more down to earth action movies much of the time, yet I mostly write Hi-Sci fi or Urban stories with some spiritual elements thrown in. Some of my favorite types of stories aren't the kind I write.

[The Giant]

It's really odd that Rich likes the all powerful DC heroes who do good because they are all-powerful when what he writes is the opposite. The order are always out of their depth facing villains way more powerful who consider them inconsequential. Many of their victories are accomplished by luck and villain's tripping over themselves. But yet they still carry on no matter how much is thrown at them. Opposite to DC.

I never said that I don't like Marvel more. Just that I appreciate DC on its own terms.

[mhsmith]

...
EDIT: any Babylon 5 + GRRM fans in the audience tonight who can compare them (give the Giant some positive recommendations for something he won't actually look at).

Big fan of each. But I'm not sure how much they really have in common. Let's see:

1) Dealing with Law vs Chaos. Babylon 5 hits you in the face with this one (it overtly drives the main storyline). ASOIAF more just deals with the limitations and inherent problems of Law in a society that isn't build on a solid moral foundation. Some comparisons here but I think it's weak.

2) Complex, well-developed characters. Sure, but plenty of series have them. You can arguably ding B5 here a bit because there's a pretty clear focus on the male characters, while the female characters generally aren't as developed (they're not paper thin, but moral growth, crises of character etc. almost always happen to the males).

3) A plot arc where the writers clearly knew where they were going from day one. Though that's generally common in book series. It's actually kind of sad that B5 was a big TV exception here.

Honestly, there are certain things here and there that the series has in common, but they're (IMO) far more different than they are alike. B5 is a sci-fi series that delves into political matters and gets "gritty" from time to time, juggles a number of semi-independent plotlines and forces characters to deal with consequences of their actions. But it's also VERY sci-fi (including stuff like time travel, mind control, etc.), sometimes melodramatic, starts incredibly slow, important (good) characters are almost never in serious danger, and has a huge amount of foreshadowing / outright prophecy (even if the actual meanings can be obscured).

ASOIAF is generally light on the fantasy elements (they exist but don't drive much of the action and through five books, there are a number of characters who might as well be in medieval France for all that magic or dragons have affected them), starts pretty fast, (almost) anyone can die, even in the middle of a plot or character development arc (Robb Stark is example #1 of this, but there are others), and there's a lot less foreshadowing / prophecy elements.

[Giggling Ghast]

:elan: Get out of here, sand dude! This isn't one of those grim n' gritty fantasy stories!

Incidentally, I think killing your characters was invented by Dragon Ball Z.

[Chuikov]

People have such a massively warped view of SoIaF.

First of all, it's not about 'all the good people die and the bad guys win.' Frankly, by this point GRRM has used the small handful of major 'good guys' deaths primarily to fake people out in regards to the deaths of other major good guys. The Ned losing his head (by now, that plot point is so infused into popular culture I'm not sure it even needs a spoiler, but just in case...) isn't really about 'all the good guys are fair game from now on' so much as 'I really want you to think all the good guys are fair game from now on so you'll never rest easy when they're in danger, but in practice most of the characters you like will survive just fine.'

Likewise, if you read the books rather than watch the show, one of the things you'll notice if you're paying attention: whenever someone really awful comes to power, it all starts going south real fast. The worst fates in the book, and the greatest casualties, have been amongst the villainous, not the heroic, and most of those horrific fates are at their root related to the behavior and decisions of the character in question. Even readers lose sight of this fact because SoIaF periodically gives them a jarring and uncomfortable reminder that, even though villains do tend to suffer for their cruelty in the long run, being noble and heroic won't save you if you use that nobility and heroism as a justification to do something really, really stupid.

So no, the lesson here is not at all 'being cynical and evil is rewarding while being good and heroic will make you suffer.' It's more 'intelligent people who know when to be heroic and when to be pragmatic run rings around people who expect that the world will either reward them just for being virtuous or do nothing while they rape and murder everyone.'

That said, judging by the Giant's comments in this thread, I get the sense he leans much more heavily towards the idealistic end of the scale. For people who have that sensibility, SoIaF is infuriating and he's probably right to avoid it.

[Flame of Anor]

I'd be interested to hear what the Giant thinks of Sam Vimes.

[Sunken Valley]

I never said that I don't like Marvel more. Just that I appreciate DC on its own terms.

And I wasn't saying Marvel and DC were opposites. In fact, I never mentioned Marvel. Though you make good point.

[Paseo H]

I don't think OOTS as a story is amoral or whatever was being claimed above. Certain characters certainly are, though. Tarquin has officially chilled me to the bone with this most recent strip.

Not because Nale isn't well worthy of the great fire below, but killing bad guys for bad reasons is still pretty bad.

And Tarquin's motivation seems to be one of the worst, short of additional information, and while not on the level of Xykon murdering an entire group of paladins with a bouncey ball or even burning slaves alive just for a sign, it shows where his heart is really at.

And it's frightening.

But that's what Act 2 is for. The bad guys make their move and look for all the world like they'll succeed.

[mhsmith]

I'd probably also note that one other theme of ASOIAF is that war is a really bad thing, and basically no one comes out a winner. By the end of book 7 I doubt that ANY characters, even the ones who've advanced in society are going to be happier than they were at the start.

Plus I definitely think he's making the point that dynastic inheritance of political power is profoundly dysfunctional. Which it was in real life as well.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'd be interested to hear what the Giant thinks of Sam Vimes.

I understand that the Giant has not read Discworld, and that is a great shame.

Like reading superman/batman/spiderman comics, there are better an worse discworld novels, but even the worst are pretty much heads and shoulders above average fantasy novels.

GW

[The Giant]

I'd be interested to hear what the Giant thinks of Sam Vimes.

I once read about half of the first Discworld book before circumstances caused me to put it down and never find the time to finish. But unlike ASOIAF, at this point I am consciously avoiding it precisely because of similarities between OOTS and it. I'll probably still read it someday, but not any time soon. Robert Lynn Asprin was my fantasy-parody of choice growing up.

[SowZ]

People have such a massively warped view of SoIaF.

First of all, it's not about 'all the good people die and the bad guys win.' Frankly, by this point GRRM has used the small handful of major 'good guys' deaths primarily to fake people out in regards to the deaths of other major good guys. The Ned losing his head (by now, that plot point is so infused into popular culture I'm not sure it even needs a spoiler, but just in case...) isn't really about 'all the good guys are fair game from now on' so much as 'I really want you to think all the good guys are fair game from now on so you'll never rest easy when they're in danger, but in practice most of the characters you like will survive just fine.'

Likewise, if you read the books rather than watch the show, one of the things you'll notice if you're paying attention: whenever someone really awful comes to power, it all starts going south real fast. The worst fates in the book, and the greatest casualties, have been amongst the villainous, not the heroic, and most of those horrific fates are at their root related to the behavior and decisions of the character in question. Even readers lose sight of this fact because SoIaF periodically gives them a jarring and uncomfortable reminder that, even though villains do tend to suffer for their cruelty in the long run, being noble and heroic won't save you if you use that nobility and heroism as a justification to do something really, really stupid.

So no, the lesson here is not at all 'being cynical and evil is rewarding while being good and heroic will make you suffer.' It's more 'intelligent people who know when to be heroic and when to be pragmatic run rings around people who expect that the world will either reward them just for being virtuous or do nothing while they rape and murder everyone.'

That said, judging by the Giant's comments in this thread, I get the sense he leans much more heavily towards the idealistic end of the scale. For people who have that sensibility, SoIaF is infuriating and he's probably right to avoid it.

Funnily enough, people call me very idealistic quite a bit and I believe in universal justice/concrete morality and stuff yet I still like aSoIaF

[Taelas]

People have such a massively warped view of SoIaF.
Agree with this, so much.


First of all, it's not about 'all the good people die and the bad guys win.' Frankly, by this point GRRM has used the small handful of major 'good guys' deaths primarily to fake people out in regards to the deaths of other major good guys. The Ned losing his head (by now, that plot point is so infused into popular culture I'm not sure it even needs a spoiler, but just in case...) isn't really about 'all the good guys are fair game from now on' so much as 'I really want you to think all the good guys are fair game from now on so you'll never rest easy when they're in danger, but in practice most of the characters you like will survive just fine.'
Yes... and no.

While I definitely agree that this is what GRRM's intention is for the series as a whole, it doesn't hold up when you scrutinize each book individually.

Spoilers for A Game of Thrones:
Ned was the main character for the first book. He has by far the greatest number of chapters, his character is more closely examined than any others' in the book, and he is the main driving force of most of the action. The fact that he ends up with his head cut off doesn't change the fact that he was the original protagonist.

It would be more accurate to say that GRRM isn't afraid to switch horses mid-steam. Doing so does not necessarily make the previous mount a "fake-out"; it still carried him that far.

You could argue that the existence of the former protagonist is a red herring, but I think that is doing both the character and Martin a disservice.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I once read about half of the first Discworld book before circumstances caused me to put it down and never find the time to finish. But unlike ASOIAF, at this point I am consciously avoiding it precisely because of similarities between OOTS and it. I'll probably still read it someday, but not any time soon. Robert Lynn Asprin was my fantasy-parody of choice growing up.

Rich, just a note to tell you that the first three discworld novels are not indicative of the style of the other 40-ish. While I agree that it is probably not a bad idea as an author to stay away from all of it to prevent cross-contamination (Eddings said the same thing, IIRC), those first three novels are closer in humor and style to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy style of humour than the rest of the series (some enjoy them all the more because of it, of course, but they do feel quite different).

Grey Wolf

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It would be more accurate to say that GRRM isn't afraid to switch horses mid-steam. Doing so does not necessarily make the previous mount a "fake-out"; it still carried him that far.

You could argue that the existence of the former protagonist is a red herring, but I think that is doing both the character and Martin a disservice.

I find Snow to be a good, final measure for this. If he is indeed dead, then yes, GRRM is not afraid to switch horses mid-stream. But if, as I suspect, he escaped by having someone else glamourised and killed in his place, then Ned will feel more and more like a decoy protagonist.

Grey Wolf

[Chuikov]

Funnily enough, people call me very idealistic quite a bit and I believe in universal justice/concrete morality and stuff yet I still like aSoIaF

I suppose by 'idealistic' I mean 'expects a story to ultimately reward heroism and punish villainy.' If that's what you're hoping to see in your fantasy, you'll probably end up abandoning the series by the end of the first book or, if not, you'll probably be one of those people who threw the book across the room at mid-point in Storm of Swords.

But something Paseo H said above is, I think, part of the reason the series is so misunderstood. It's a seven book series. We're on book five. When people say 'the bad guys win and the good guys lose in SoIaF', they're doing so in the midst of the equivalent of Act 2. You know, that period when everything is going in favor of the villains and all seems lost?

Even GRRM himself has said the series will have a bittersweet ending. But the fact the final book, when the series was a trilogy, was intended to be called 'A Time for Wolves' gives me high hopes that the series isn't just about seeing how much more badly GRRM can screw over the Starks.

[Thrillhouse]

Psh. The Giant is obviously Shakespeare, and this whole thing has been Hamlet with DnD mixed in. Elan will now kill Tarquin while Haley drinks a cup of poisoned sand and Durkon gets staked by Belkar who gets killed by Roy who then dies by getting hit with a poison butterfly, and then a few more things are poisoned and the whole cast is dead.

Obviously.

[SowZ]

I suppose by 'idealistic' I mean 'expects a story to ultimately reward heroism and punish villainy.' If that's what you're hoping to see in your fantasy, you'll probably end up abandoning the series by the end of the first book or, if not, you'll probably be one of those people who threw the book across the room at mid-point in Storm of Swords.

But something Paseo H said above is, I think, part of the reason the series is so misunderstood. It's a seven book series. We're on book five. When people say 'the bad guys win and the good guys lose in SoIaF', they're doing so in the midst of the equivalent of Act 2. You know, that period when everything is going in favor of the villains and all seems lost?

Even GRRM himself has said the series will have a bittersweet ending. But the fact the final book, when the series was a trilogy, was intended to be called 'A Time for Wolves' gives me high hopes that the series isn't just about seeing how much more badly GRRM can screw over the Starks.

By idealistic, I just mean has a generally positive outlook on how things will turn out in the end and focuses a bit too much on the should rather than the 'what is.' Regardless, I can really get into more dismal stories.

[Chuikov]

big spoiler

Arrrrghhh! Cover that up for the Unsullied! Quickly!

But on that subject, I think Jon is a testament to just how many fake-outs we've had for our favorite characters. Hardly anyone I've talked to really thinks Jon is truly gone.

Likewise, the second big kick in the face the books offer is the RW, in which we in truth lose only one PoV character: Catelyn, a character a good many readers actually despised for her idiot decisions and treatment of Jon Snow. We never once got a Robb PoV chapter and his loss is primarily a kick in the face because it signals the ultimate defeat of the northern rebellion.

I've heard the sentiment 'If he kills Arya, I'm gone' linked to the RW many times now, and I believe if GRRM had killed Arya in those chapters he would indeed have lost many readers. Even GRRM has to know when a character has become expendable and when he stands to completely ostracize his readership by killing them.

[Taelas]

<snipped>

:smallconfused:

I don't see how the situation you propose could happen given the actual scene, but making a character dodge death--even when it seems inevitable--hardly ensures that GRRM won't switch horses later.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

:smallconfused:

I don't see how the situation you propose could happen given the actual scene,

A certain king already did exactly the same thing by switching places, while glamourised, with a guy with questionable fashion choices, to escape the fire.


but making a character dodge death--even when it seems inevitable--hardly ensures that GRRM won't switch horses later.

No, but it considerably weakens the argument. From where I sit, I feel that there are characters that do indeed have plot armour in the aSoIaF books, and Snow seems to be one of them. We'll know in another decade or so.

Grey Wolf

[SowZ]

NOTE: I spoil something that happens in like the first 10,000 words.

I really don't care much for the themes and general outlook of most of GRRM's stuff. But the story is good enough and the characters good enough I'm totally trapped. Sometimes plot points resolves in really excellent, balanced ways, too. Take early in the series, Sansa's betrayal of Arya leads directly to Lady getting axed. You can't expect consequences to have that much poetic justice every time a plot point goes down, especially not in the game of thrones, but I will admit the twists and turns are foreshadowed/have a sense of justice more often than most people give it credit for.

[Chuikov]

A certain king already did exactly the same thing by switching places, while glamourised, with a guy with questionable fashion choices, to escape the fire.

Yes, but that wasn't a PoV character. We see that last chapter through the character's eyes and no one else's.

More likely:

A) Jon has warged into ghost.
B) Melisandre takes a cue from Thoros of Myr and gives Jon a revive.
C) Jon is Azor Ahai and we're about to see some downright Messianic stuff going on.

Regardless, I would wager money that the vast majority of readers are calling GRRM's bluff on Jon. In one way or another, Jon will be back come Winds of Winter.

[Taelas]

A certain king already did exactly the same thing by switching places, while glamourised, with a guy with questionable fashion choices, to escape the fire.
We weren't within said guy's head at the time.

The other scene is written from that character's POV. Unless you are suggesting that the entire chapter is a fake-out--that the author is, in effect, lying to our collective faces--I don't see how it is possible. The character's thoughts do not seem at all out of place or as if he's not the actual person in every way.

Most likely, if the character doesn't die, it's because of something else.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yes, but that wasn't a PoV character. We see that last chapter through the character's eyes and no one else's.

Ah, but whose PoV? GRRM had already established that if you take on a different persona, your chapter title will match it, so just because his name was at the front it doesn't mean it was the actual person - it could be someone really trying to be said person (Reek, anyone?).

But yes, your explanation also makes sense. My point was that The major character death in the first book is not parallel to this one, since most of us do indeed expect this one to not stick.

Personally, I don't mind, since I like plot armour (yay for Elan's prophecy!), but it does show that GRRM is not as ruthless to his characters as he tries to pretend to be.

Grey Wolf

[konradknox]

Interviews with Martin are all over YouTube. If you actually listen to what he says about his fiction, you can tell he is not at all as callous and cynical as he is portrayed by the internet memes and blogs, etc.

That being said, I'm a massive fan of both OOTS and Game of Thrones.
I think what people overlook about Game of Thrones are all the good things that happen in the world, and only focus on the bad unjust things. Like the entire Daenerys story arc is full of positive acts, as she is good to her followers, and she actively works to liberate enslaved countries.
Also, the story simply has a delayed consequence for villainy.

Not to say that similarity is bad either, but recall Start of Darkness. That book is really dark!

Generally the opinion I see here is that Martin's world is dystopian, while Rich's world is shiny and just, but that's not the case though. There is plenty of dystopia in OOTSverse. Take the Empire of Blood. I mean it's pretty much the same regime as King's Landing was under Mad King.

Individual character stories all make perfect logical sense in both authors' works. Martin's world is just more graphic and X-rated, but it's a matter of filter and taste.

There is no real moral difference in some sort of global universal justice sense.
There is plenty of heroism and plenty of snakeness in both stories.

I personally find Nale's death extremely similar to Robb Stark's. The character thought himself safe and invincible, broke his allegiance, had the cojones to go back to the person he screwed over, and greeted them with a smug smile, then got promptly executed to their own shocking surprise.

Roy's death, also, like Eddard's death. A classic death of an honourable hero, flawed as he may be, due to a miscalculation of a strategy, during an attempt to thwart a greater evil. They died differently, but both died due to their choices to take the leap of faith.

In the entire OOTS story, no death touched me as deep as Right-Eye's so far. There isn't a death quite so unfair and tragic in Game of Thrones. But there isn't really a clear division between heroes and villains in that story. Just choices.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I personally find Nale's death extremely similar to Robb Stark's. The character thought himself safe and invincible, broke his allegiance, had the cojones to go back to the person he screwed over, and greeted them with a smug smile, then got promptly executed to their own shocking surprise.

You need to reread the RW if you thing the smug smile was in the face that got stabbed.

GW

[Mammal]

I agree with neriana to a certain extent. There's a lot of rape in aSoIaF that doesn't seem to exist for any reason other than "wow things sure are gritty and that guy's a huge, giant jerk." It seems like lazy storytelling to use rape primarily as a shorthand for "these people are BAD" when it's such a sensitive topic for so many people. And even the romances that are consensual in the story tend to have weird power imbalances that are really squicky to read (usually in the form of 20+ year age gaps). The series wallows in a peculiar kind of misery largely to no effect. We get it, it's grim and horrible. The grim, horribleness has been established since the first book/season. Can we move on?

That said, I've read all 5 books and watch the show. There are compelling aspects to it (I like GRRM's characterization [mostly] and deconstruction of fantasy archetypes). I watch it because I'm emotionally invested in particular characters, not because there's some deep, gripping social commentary. War is hell, mmmkay. I just want to know if Sansa's going to throw Littlefinger out the moon door.

All in all, I'm very meh towards it. I liked the series more than the books (I think it does a better job juggling the viewpoints), but I'll probably read the rest of the books when they come out.

I can't comment on the Marvel/DC thing, except to say that I am also not a Frank Miller fan. Year One was good, The Dark Knight Returns just felt...overwhelming? I didn't like it at all, I can't really pinpoint what it is. Gruesome w/o a point? I don't know. My favorite Batman comics would have to be 1. Gotham Central, 2. The Long Halloween, and 3. Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth.

I'm also indifferent about Pratchett's work. I liked Good Omens, Disc World just never did it for me (though I did like the Tiffany Aching series, which seemed more character-driven and less about how very quiiiiiiirkkkkyyyy the whole setting is). American Gods is really good though (written by Neil Gaiman, who cowrote Good Omens and wrote for DC for a while).

Basically, I am the font of unpopular opinions. Ask me about Bioshock: Infinite, I dare you.

[Chuikov]

Also, the story simply has a delayed consequence for villainy.

This part is important. The main difference between SoIaF and most fantasy isn't that the 'bad guys win and heroes all get slaughtered'; it's that the near-villain victories are taken rather farther than is typical. If Star Wars had the spirit of SoIaF, Luke would probably miss that last shot on the Death Star, the rebel base would be blown to pieces, the Empire would be seemingly victorious everywhere...and then we'd get an extended look at the aftermath of that supposed 'victory' and see all the cracks still evident in the villains' seemingly successful plans. We'd see how bad guys can still fail in the long run even without a noble hero to ride in and overthrow them.

[Michaeler]

Psh. The Giant is obviously Shakespeare, and this whole thing has been Hamlet with DnD mixed in. Elan will now kill Tarquin while Haley drinks a cup of poisoned sand and Durkon gets staked by Belkar who gets killed by Roy who then dies by getting hit with a poison butterfly, and then a few more things are poisoned and the whole cast is dead.

Obviously.

If anything I expect Elan to take a leaf from MacBeth to grant Tarquin his final defeat.

:elan: We'll have thee as our rarer monsters are. Painted on a pole and under it "Here you may see the tyrant."

[FlawedParadigm]

I agree with neriana to a certain extent. There's a lot of rape in aSoIaF that doesn't seem to exist for any reason other than "wow things sure are gritty and that guy's a huge, giant jerk." It seems like lazy storytelling to use rape primarily as a shorthand for "these people are BAD" when it's such a sensitive topic for so many people. And even the romances that are consensual in the story tend to have weird power imbalances that are really squicky to read (usually in the form of 20+ year age gaps). The series wallows in a peculiar kind of misery largely to no effect. We get it, it's grim and horrible. The grim, horribleness has been established since the first book/season. Can we move on?

This is a much more reasonable and accurate interpretation, although there are parts I disagree with, again, I can't say anything publicly without resorting to forbidden real world history discussion, unless you'd care to PM about it.

[brionl]

I once read about half of the first Discworld book before circumstances caused me to put it down and never find the time to finish. But unlike ASOIAF, at this point I am consciously avoiding it precisely because of similarities between OOTS and it. I'll probably still read it someday, but not any time soon. Robert Lynn Asprin was my fantasy-parody of choice growing up.

Other people have probably pointed out that the first two Discworld books are very different than most of the rest of them. They are much a parody of heroic fiction cliches, with a little plot thrown in. Still enjoyable, but not much substance. After that they start getting really good. Equal Rites, Pyramids and Small Gods are early ones that you can read without needing a lot of backstory.

As for Mr. Martin, right now I have not enough work and too much time to read, so I have read all of them. I'd recommend you not waste your time on them. They just don't deserve the level of praise that keeps getting heaped on them, IMO.
Aside from that, he may never even finish the series. He is not exactly young, and is taking longer and longer between books, and each "book" keeps getting bigger and bigger. Not that I'm ill-wishing him, you just have to look at the odds.

[Sniffnoy]

Generally the opinion I see here is that Martin's world is dystopian, while Rich's world is shiny and just, but that's not the case though. There is plenty of dystopia in OOTSverse. Take the Empire of Blood. I mean it's pretty much the same regime as King's Landing was under Mad King.

Tarquin seems to be quite sane; if he's paranoid, presumably it's because he has good reason to be. If there's anyone similar to Tarquin in ASoIaF, I'd say it's Tywin Lannister (if, y'know, Tarquin respected the 4th wall and was extremely serious about everything).

Really after reading the confrontation between Tarquin and Nale in #913, I thought of the confrontation between Tywin and Tyrion at the end of A Storm of Swords. The father trying to do the best for his son who [has/he believes has] committed a terrible crime against [his best friend/his family], the son giving his final rejection of his father's help. Tyrion isn't at all like Nale, and it goes pretty differently (I mean, the circumstances are pretty different), but I thought it was an interesting comparison.

[brionl]

Oh, and speaking of Frank Miller, I sincerely hope that one day his lasting legacy will be "One of the main inspirations for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles."

[Chuikov]

Tarquin seems to be quite sane; if he's paranoid, presumably it's because he has good reason to be. If there's anyone similar to Tarquin in ASoIaF, I'd say it's Tywin Lannister (if, y'know, Tarquin respected the 4th wall and was extremely serious about everything).

Really after reading the confrontation between Tarquin and Nale in #913, I thought of the confrontation between Tywin and Tyrion at the end of A Storm of Swords. The father trying to do the best for his son who [has/he believes has] committed a terrible crime against [his best friend/his family], the son giving his final rejection of his father's help. Tyrion isn't at all like Nale, and it goes pretty differently (I mean, the circumstances are pretty different), but I thought it was an interesting comparison.

Big difference is Tarquin lives in a world of good and evil. I mean, literally, people go 'Ding!' when you cast Detect Evil or Detect Good and there are very obviously existing afterlives devised entirely for people who are good or bad. Most of the OotS bad guys know they're bad and openly embrace it as an identity.

Tywin does not. He's ruthless, cruel, treats his children terribly...and as Hand of the King presided over an extended period of peace and prosperity even though the the King was a lunatic. Part of the reason he did so well was precisely because everyone was terrified of him and therefore didn't make trouble. He did a lot of terrible things, but to the average person his rule was a good thing. I would wager he doesn't think of himself as evil at all; he thinks he's doing what needs to be done for the good of his family and (to a far lesser extent) the realm.

In other words, no AD&D alignment system and no card-carrying villainy allows Tywin to be a whole lot more grey. That isn't a knock against OotS, since OotS is part high fantasy and part comedy whereas SoIaF is deadly serious most of the time. Apples and oranges, that's all.

[SowZ]

Big difference is Tarquin lives in a world of good and evil. I mean, literally, people go 'Ding!' when you cast Detect Evil or Detect Good and there are very obviously existing afterlives devised entirely for people who are good or bad. Most of the OotS bad guys know they're bad and openly embrace it as an identity.

Tywin does not. He's ruthless, cruel, treats his children terribly...and as Hand of the King presided over an extended period of peace and prosperity even though the the King was a lunatic. Part of the reason he did so well was precisely because everyone was terrified of him and therefore didn't make trouble. He did a lot of terrible things, but to the average person his rule was a good thing. I would wager he doesn't think of himself as evil at all; he thinks he's doing what needs to be done for the good of his family and (to a far lesser extent) the realm.

In other words, no AD&D alignment system and no card-carrying villainy allows Tywin to be a whole lot more grey. That isn't a knock against OotS, since OotS is part high fantasy and part comedy whereas SoIaF is deadly serious most of the time. Apples and oranges, that's all.

If a powerful person threatens Tywin's rule over the country, he has every person in that family, down to distant name carriers, murdered. If you are a woman pregnant with a child of Tywin's enemy, you will be murdered. IF you are three years old... You get the program. He isn't just ruthless and pragmatic. He is far worse.

If you happen to be an orphan and there is a small chance you might be payed off by Lannister enemies, Tywin's men will capture you and torture you 'just in case' and Tywin will just shake his head and say 'boys will be boys.' Look at Tywin's track record of genocide and systematic torture and child murdering. He has ordered hundreds of children murdered and stood by while dozens more were tortured to death.

Tywin is up there with the most evil people on the show. Deluding himself into thinking he is only in it for his families interest changes nothing.

The moral difference between Tywin and, say, Joffrey, is mostly that Tywin is smart enough to know that he has more power when people are happy. If he was better off by sacrificing dozens of innocents a day, he would do that. Because when he is benefited by killing hundreds of innocents, he doesn't bat an eye. Keeping the populace happy isn't necessarily good. It may be entirely self interest. Also, Tywin isn't a sadist, but he enjoys enslaving people and lording power over them in other ways.

Tywin is every bit as bad as Tarquin.

[Knight.Anon]

.

Tywin is every bit as bad as Tarquin.

Tarquin is Tywin on the inside LittleFinger on the outside.

[Oscredwin]

I'm confused about everyone being so down on Reek. His arc in the most recent book was (can't even describe it without major spoilers):
one of the most inspiring I've read in a long time. Theon was profoundly immature, glory seeking, stupid, and selfish. Then he gets tortured and broken by one of the most evil characters in the series (and that's saying something). Over the course of the book he sees people in trouble, and goes from being a broken animal to a heroic human being. He risks his life (maybe even dying) to save some women (I've forgotten who) from a cruel death. He takes initiative for the second time in his life and this time he does so with purpose, with a noble heart, and as a full person. He engages in one of the most heroic acts in the series.

I count that as an amazing redemptive arc. My heart swelled with joy on reading his final chapter title, Theon Greyjoy.

[SowZ]

Tarquin is Tywin on the inside LittleFinger on the outside.

Interesting way of putting it... Of course, LittleFinger's entire life philosophy is practically the definition of non Chaotic Stupid Chaotic Evil. But then you said he's only Littlefinger on the outside...


I'm confused about everyone being so down on Reek. His arc in the most recent book was (can't even describe it without major spoilers):
one of the most inspiring I've read in a long time. Theon was profoundly immature, glory seeking, stupid, and selfish. Then he gets tortured and broken by one of the most evil characters in the series (and that's saying something). Over the course of the book he sees people in trouble, and goes from being a broken animal to a heroic human being. He risks his life (maybe even dying) to save some women (I've forgotten who) from a cruel death. He takes initiative for the second time in his life and this time he does so with purpose, with a noble heart, and as a full person. He engages in one of the most heroic acts in the series.

I count that as an amazing redemptive arc. My heart swelled with joy on reading his final chapter title, Theon Greyjoy.

Well, personally, I just don't like him because he smells. And also his name rhymes with both Leek and Sneak which is just stupid.

[Bulldog Psion]

Psh. The Giant is obviously Shakespeare, and this whole thing has been Hamlet with DnD mixed in. Elan will now kill Tarquin while Haley drinks a cup of poisoned sand and Durkon gets staked by Belkar who gets killed by Roy who then dies by getting hit with a poison butterfly, and then a few more things are poisoned and the whole cast is dead.

Obviously.

That's a good description of Hamlet, all right. :smallbiggrin:

[Mammal]

I'm confused about everyone being so down on Reek. His arc in the most recent book was (can't even describe it without major spoilers):
one of the most inspiring I've read in a long time. Theon was profoundly immature, glory seeking, stupid, and selfish. Then he gets tortured and broken by one of the most evil characters in the series (and that's saying something). Over the course of the book he sees people in trouble, and goes from being a broken animal to a heroic human being. He risks his life (maybe even dying) to save some women (I've forgotten who) from a cruel death. He takes initiative for the second time in his life and this time he does so with purpose, with a noble heart, and as a full person. He engages in one of the most heroic acts in the series.

I count that as an amazing redemptive arc. My heart swelled with joy on reading his final chapter title, Theon Greyjoy.

I think people are down on it because at times, it came across as very torture-porn-y. Plus there was the "sex" scene which just felt weird and unnecessary, and is another tally in the "Gratuitous, Poorly Handled Rape" column.

Although I also like Reek's arc. It feels redemptive and triumphant, even if the journey had several "wait no why is this scene headed in this direction" scenes.

[SowZ]

I think people are down on it because at times, it came across as very torture-porn-y. Plus there was the "sex" scene which just felt weird and unnecessary, and is another tally in the "Gratuitous, Poorly Handled Rape" column.

Although I also like Reek's arc. It feels redemptive and triumphant, even if the journey had several "wait no why is this scene headed in this direction" scenes.

*Shrugs* It's tough to feel pity on a guy who might be a rapist but who definitely murdered the adopted children of one of his ex-lovers just to save face. I mean, sure, his punishment maybe didn't quite fit the crime and now an then I feel pity for him but mostly I save my pity for characters that, while aren't in as bad of a situation, at least didn't willfully dig their own grave.

[Sniffnoy]

Big difference is Tarquin lives in a world of good and evil. I mean, literally, people go 'Ding!' when you cast Detect Evil or Detect Good and there are very obviously existing afterlives devised entirely for people who are good or bad. Most of the OotS bad guys know they're bad and openly embrace it as an identity.

Tywin does not. He's ruthless, cruel, treats his children terribly...and as Hand of the King presided over an extended period of peace and prosperity even though the the King was a lunatic. Part of the reason he did so well was precisely because everyone was terrified of him and therefore didn't make trouble. He did a lot of terrible things, but to the average person his rule was a good thing. I would wager he doesn't think of himself as evil at all; he thinks he's doing what needs to be done for the good of his family and (to a far lesser extent) the realm.

Oh, I agree entirely. I just think he was the closest match. And heh, I guess you were thinking of the rule of the Mad King when Tywin was Hand and before he was quite so mad, so it seems you agree to some extent as well. :) I was thinking of after he'd dismissed Tywin and gone full paranoid, hence the confusion.

(Although I like Knight.Anon description's of "Tywin on the inside, Littlefinger on the outside".)

[SowZ]

Oh, I agree entirely. I just think he was the closest match. And heh, I guess you were thinking of the rule of the Mad King when Tywin was Hand and before he was quite so mad, so it seems you agree to some extent as well. :) I was thinking of after he'd dismissed Tywin and gone full paranoid, hence the confusion.

(Although I like Knight.Anon description's of "Tywin on the inside, Littlefinger on the outside".)

It is tough to deny that were Tywin thrown into a D&D world of absolute morality, he would ping as capital E evil.

[Oscredwin]

*Shrugs* It's tough to feel pity on a guy who might be a rapist but who definitely murdered the adopted children of one of his ex-lovers just to save face. I mean, sure, his punishment maybe didn't quite fit the crime and now an then I feel pity for him but mostly I save my pity for characters that, while aren't in as bad of a situation, at least didn't willfully dig their own grave.

I agree that he dug his own grave. I just think he got pulled out of it and dropped into something much much worse. What he went through wasn't karmic retribution, it was much worse.

[Mammal]

*Shrugs* It's tough to feel pity on a guy who might be a rapist but who definitely murdered the adopted children of one of his ex-lovers just to save face. I mean, sure, his punishment maybe didn't quite fit the crime and now an then I feel pity for him but mostly I save my pity for characters that, while aren't in as bad of a situation, at least didn't willfully dig their own grave.

I was referring specifically to the scene where Ramsay has Theon "warm up" Jeyne before he beds her. It's not at all explicit, it was just unnecessary and really gross. And like Neiria pointed out, a rape-y scene more about a man being affected by the rape than about the victim.

And while I'm not contesting that Theon is a terrible excuse for a human being,* but outside that scene, I don't think he's ever involved in rape. It's been a while since I've read/watched it, but I think he was generally lecherous rather than predatory. All his partners were willing, to the best of my knowledge, even if he treated them poorly :smallconfused:

*And Martin seems found of allowing the worst people to undergo redemptive transformations. Look at Jaime's whole arc.

[JackRackham]

Eh, no. I've never even seen the show. I just don't give a damn for any of the characters that are still left alive. Don't care if he ever does actually finish the series or not.
WHAT!? Man, I do not know how you could possibly say that. Wow. GRRM is awesome.

So many amazing characters still alive.
John Snow (probably), Arya Stark, Daenarys, Jaime, Tyrion, Bran, Hodor, and those are just off the top of my head

And that's not even taking into account some of the wonderfully awesome villains. I mean, if you don't like GRRM, you should be banned from books (but not really). And, I agree with that other guy, if you don't love Arya, you have no soul (but not really).

[Chuikov]

Tywin is every bit as bad as Tarquin.

Worse, in some ways. Don't think Tarquin ever organized the gang rape of a 13 year old girl by his entire barracks, followed by ordering his own 13 year old son to join in just to teach him a lesson. That would be a touch dark for OotS.

But would you rather live in the Empire of Blood under Tarquin, in which his only interest is in momentarily distracting you from how awful it is via blood sports, or Westeros under Tywin as Hand, in which it seems widely agreed everything ran quite smoothly and there was peace and prosperity so long as you didn't try to rebel? As you say, he only kept the prosperity and peace for the benefit of himself and his house, but that doesn't mean it was any less real for the realm and doesn't mean it would be any less preferable.

There are villains in SoIaF that make the worst OotS has to offer look downright tame: Ramsay Snow and Gregor Clegane come to mind. I've always found it somewhat weird how often GRRM talks about how he prefers 'grey' characters, morally speaking, when so many of his characters are just about the worst monsters you can find in fiction.

But without an alignment system or a world which explicitly recognizes everyone as 'good', 'bad' or 'neutral', characters are allowed a lot more flexibility, and so the realm can have decades of peace and prosperity and a harsh but fair kind of justice under a self-serving scumbag like Tywin Lannister without people erupting into debates about whether or not he's Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral or whatever else. He doesn't have to run a borderline dystopia to establish his villain cred, basically, because he doesn't consider himself a villain.

[JackRackham]

I'm really tired of this idea that George R. R. Martin invented the concept of killing characters circa year 2000. At least the OP didn't insultingly imply that I'm only killing characters because I'm a fanboy of his, as I have seen elsewhere.

So, for the record: I've never read George R. R. Martin. I haven't watched Game of Thrones. I don't have HBO, for starters, and I haven't bought the DVDs. I am aware, second-hand, that apparently he kills off a lot of characters, sometimes all at once. I can't really say too much about that, though, because I'm not familiar with it.

I can say that I have read several reviews/articles about the work that makes me think that it's not for me, as I have no interest in "gritty realism" for its own sake, I almost exclusively want to read about actual heroes being actually heroic, and I prefer not to read extensive descriptions of meat dishes.

And I've never killed a developed character where that character's death wasn't a direct result of their own choices.

I won't say much here, but
A. Your work is nothing like GRRM. That is true.
B. You should absolutely read GRRMs work if you still spend your time reading others' fantasy fiction. He is an amazing writer and his story is one of the 2-3 best I've read/watched/heard
C. This whole thing where GRRM's world is uncaring and you shouldn't ever care about anything is complete BS and not what his work is about. The entire reason his killing of characters has such impact is that he DOES make you care about them (if there's a comparison to the death of characters in your work, this is it). He kills characters because he's writing about war and war is not pretty. Good people die in war. Bad things happen in war. Good people even become bad people in war. That, if anything, is the message.

Anyway, the recommendations of internet strangers are and should be taken with a grain of salt, but all the flak GRRM gets is either 1. good-natured spoofing or 2. people who don't get what he's doing (and this is not intended as an insult; every work doesn't reach every reader).

[Oscredwin]

I was referring specifically to the scene where Ramsay has Theon "warm up" Jeyne before he beds her. It's not at all explicit, it was just unnecessary and really gross. And like Neiria pointed out, a rape-y scene more about a man being affected by the rape than about the victim.

And while I'm not contesting that Theon is a terrible excuse for a human being,* but outside that scene, I don't think he's ever involved in rape. It's been a while since I've read/watched it, but I think he was generally lecherous rather than predatory. All his partners were willing, to the best of my knowledge, even if he treated them poorly :smallconfused:

*And Martin seems found of allowing the worst people to undergo redemptive transformations. Look at Jaime's whole arc.

The idea that anyone, no matter how vile, can be redeemed seems to be a theme in Martin's work that is somewhat in line with what The Giant is looking for in fiction. It's actually very idealistic. Of course Martin spends a lot of pages depicting the vilest of the vile characters and having them living in a world where it doesn't seem like they would ever be redeemed.

[Angulf]

So... the Giant already said he didn't read ASOIAF.
And it's not wrong, either. I find both stories, George Martin's and Rich's, amazing in their own unique ways.
I mean... c'mon, I wept like a brat with Durkon, as I did with Lady on GoT (not with Robb Stark. Actually, the douche got what he looked for).
Last panel with Tarquin and Nale was like... holy crap. And both Rich and Martin are two different men with two different points of view about how to write a story. And that's the great part: if every author I like wrote the same, I'd be bored to death.

[Chuikov]

The idea that anyone, no matter how vile, can be redeemed seems to be a theme in Martin's work that is somewhat in line with what The Giant is looking for in fiction. It's actually very idealistic. Of course Martin spends a lot of pages depicting the vilest of the vile characters and having them living in a world where it doesn't seem like they would ever be redeemed.

If Ramsay or Walder Frey ever end up redeemed, I'll eat my shoe.

[jere7my]

Most likely, if the character doesn't die, it's because of something else.

The likely solution is spelled out in the prologue.

[JackRackham]

For the record, most characters who die in ASoIaF die in some way to their own actions, as well. I certainly don't recall a meteor striking anyone. It's just that you feel so close to those characters that there's no justification that's good enough. And there's no justification good enough for certain other horrible SOBs continuing to live. Basically, people get emotional about it and no longer see it for what it is.

[Oscredwin]

If Ramsay or Walder Frey ever end up redeemed, I'll eat my shoe.

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/2079/soonvg3.gifRedemption is a rare and special thing, after all. It is not for everyone.

[SowZ]

I was referring specifically to the scene where Ramsay has Theon "warm up" Jeyne before he beds her. It's not at all explicit, it was just unnecessary and really gross. And like Neiria pointed out, a rape-y scene more about a man being affected by the rape than about the victim.

And while I'm not contesting that Theon is a terrible excuse for a human being,* but outside that scene, I don't think he's ever involved in rape. It's been a while since I've read/watched it, but I think he was generally lecherous rather than predatory. All his partners were willing, to the best of my knowledge, even if he treated them poorly :smallconfused:

*And Martin seems found of allowing the worst people to undergo redemptive transformations. Look at Jaime's whole arc.

Theon threatens to rape Osha once, that is where I was coming from.

[Sir_Leorik]

Whereas I find Superman to be a boring character wherein his victory is not a foregone conclusion because he's the hero, but because he ridiculously outclasses all but the most excessive of threats. He does not - and cannot by definition of being Super-man have enough flaws or weaknesses to be interesting, else he stops being super.

I can't use Batman because he's not always traditionally heroic either. Spider-Man, though, is probably a dandy example. He was heroic, for heroic reasons, but still fallible and human enough to make for interesting reading, and his power level stayed sufficiently below that of thousands of nines. Although I will admit both he and Superman repeatedly made remarks on how they have/had to hold back so as not to accidentally kill bad guys, at least with Spidey it didn't sound as braggy.

(Also, I will point out the previous paragraph does not have tense errors in it, but the reasons for that are spoilers.)

There's nothing wrong with Superman. Most writers don't understand the character. Those who do, like Alan Moore, John Byrne, Louise Simonson, Bruce Timm, Paul Dini, Grant Morrison, Joe Kelly, or Kurt Busiek, have written amazing works, while most of the other writers have tried and failed to write anything memorable.

Also, you do know that Peter Parker made a pact with Mephisto to save his Aunt May's life and undo the revelation of his secret identity during "Civil War", right? Also Peter Parker is no longer the Amazing Spider-Man. His brain was rewritten by Doctor Octopus, who is running around as the villainous "Superior Spider-Man". SpOck doesn't accidentally kill bad guys, he murders them out of a sense of smug superiority.

[Mammal]

Theon threatens to rape Osha once, that is where I was coming from.

Now that you say it, you're right. I forgot all about that scene. I've mentally blacklisted Osha as retribution for her involvement in Bran's arc :smalltongue:

But yea. A Song of Ice and Fire, man. What are you gonna do?

[ti'esar]

Guys, what does any of this have to do with OOTS anymore?

[SowZ]

Guys, what does any of this have to do with OOTS anymore?

The topic was also about aSoIaF so it has sort of just become more about discussing that series and occasionally linking it back to OOTS or Superman.


Now that you say it, you're right. I forgot all about that scene. I've mentally blacklisted Osha as retribution for her involvement in Bran's arc :smalltongue:

But yea. A Song of Ice and Fire, man. What are you gonna do?

Not the most boring Stark, though.
http://i.lv3.hbo.com/assets/images/series/game-of-thrones/character/s3/rikon-stark-1024.jpg
You can always tell a Milford man...

[Sir_Leorik]

But see, this isn't really the point. If the only thing a writer can do with Superman is introduce a threat even more powerful, they've already failed. The crux of Superman is that he is a being of immense power whose limitations are entirely internal. He is bound not by the laws of physics, but by the laws of man. By his own moral compass.

As far back as Plato and his story of the Ring of Gyges, philosophers have debated whether or not a man who was free from the physical constraints of society could be virtuous. If a man was invisible, it was argued, clearly he would run around doing whatever thing he could get away with because society could not stop him, and therefore justice was a social construct only. Socrates rejects that point, saying that justice exists whether or not society is able to enforce it, and the man who abuses the Ring would be miserable with his power, while the man who resists its temptations would be happy in his abstinence.

That's Superman.

That's it. That's what matters about the character. That's why his archenemy isn't the guy who's stronger than him, it's the guy who has no compunctions about violating society's rules in plain sight. And that's why the true limitation on Superman is that he can't do the same thing.

Once you reduce Superman to issues of his exact power level, you've lost sight of what the point of the character really is.

I would take that a step further, and say that every memorable Superman villain is based around the concept of abuse of power. Lex Luthor is either a brazen criminal mastermind (pre-Crisis) or a corrupt CEO, who get rich murdering his parents to collect insurance money. The Parasite steals power from other people to feed his never-ending gluttony. Brainiac has accumulated knowledge from across the cosmos, but rather than use it to improve his homeworld of Colu, he travels the galaxy collecting cities using a white-dwarf-star fragment. Mongul is a petty tyrant, who thinks he is a brave conqueror, while he hides in his Warworld. Mr. Mxyzptlk could do anything, but he chooses to torment lesser beings in the Third Dimension. And of course there is Darkseid, Jack Kirby's ruminations on absolute evil and fascism, who wants to trample the very concept of freedom of thought under his boot.

Superman opposes them, not just physically, but morally, by standing for Truth and Justice. Superman's hearing is sharp enough that he could eavesdrop on everyone in the world, but he uses it to respond to cries for help. He can look through solid objects with his X-Ray vision, but he never abuses it. He would rather be an example for others, rather than force them to agree with him.

That's also why Doomsday is not really an interesting villain. He showed up with no backstory, and even the backstory he was given didn't give any insights into him, since Doomsday is just a rampaging id.

[Sir_Leorik]

You know, I've only ever read a few comics. I haven't read any superman, and very little of any DC character. Sometimes I'm tempted to pick them up, especially when reading threads / comments like this.

But then I go to the wikipedia page on Darkseid, and this what i read:


Sjeesh. That makes twilight sound appealing.

Can someone explain what the attraction is of stories like that?

You need to read earlier works, such as the original "Fourth World" books where Jack Kirby introduced Darkseid, Orion, Mister Miracle and the other New Gods. Darkseid isn't the god of Evil, he's specifically the god of Fascism, and Kirby was trying to illustrate this by showing how the people Darkseid oppressed on Apokolips worshiped him out of love.

There are several really good Darkseid stories I can recommend, including "The Great Darkness Saga" from the "Legion of Superheroes", "Cosmic Odyssey", "Rock of Ages" from "JLA", John Byrne's run on "New Gods" from the 1990's, and the DCAU series, "Superman: the Animated Series", "Justice League" and "Justice League Unlimited". I recommend skipping "Final Crisis" unless you've read everything Grant Morrison has written for DC Comics since 1987. :smalltongue:

[Sir_Leorik]

I didn't say it was anything near a perfect analogy. But then, I wouldn't liken heroic fantasy to Superman, either. :smalltongue: It's simply the closest thing I could think of in terms of superheroes.

As for misogyny, Martin has several excellent strong female characters (including villains). I certainly wouldn't call him misogynistic. (Miller, well, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax; can't disagree there.)

To clarify, I was speaking of Batman: Year One in particular, not his later work (which I haven't read, therefore cannot comment on).

You can see hints of Miller's later misogyny in both "The Dark Knight Returns" and "Batman: Year One". In the latter, the character of Selina Kyle is a notorious example.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'd be interested to hear what the Giant thinks of Sam Vimes.


I once read about half of the first Discworld book before circumstances caused me to put it down and never find the time to finish. But unlike ASOIAF, at this point I am consciously avoiding it precisely because of similarities between OOTS and it. I'll probably still read it someday, but not any time soon.

That's a shame, but I can definitely understand why you'd feel the need to avoid Discworld until OotS is done. I do really recommend reading "Guards, Guards!" the first book in the "Ankh-Morpork City Watch" section of the series, which plays with a lot of tropes about law and order, how a jaded old copper might view an idealistic young Lawful Good fellow, why an assassin might be the best choice to run a Chaotic city like Ankh-Morpork (which has a lot of Lankhmar in its DNA) and why buying baby swamp dragons and then abandoning them is wrong!

[Chuikov]

Guys, what does any of this have to do with OOTS anymore?

The thread has been all over the place, admittedly, but the big issue is comparisons between OotS and SoIaF.

And summed up: OotS and SoIaF are two very, very different series.

One is a sort of blend of high fantasy and comedy, in which the heroes are generally heroes and villains are generally villains and we can reasonably expect that by the end the former will triumph over the latter one way or another. Yeah, the heroes are a bit ineffectual right now next to Tarquin and Team Evil, but I think general expectation is that it won't be like that forever.

Or maybe it will. Eh. Whatever.

The other is dark fantasy and machiavellian political scheming, with lots of morally grey characters and lots of morally black characters and a little too much rape and incest and overlong descriptions of what everyone is eating. Bad things happen to good people, villains can actually win (or at least come a lot closer than people are used to in fantasy), and idealism is rarely rewarded. Also, it contains a fat pink mast that will scar you for life.

But regardless of its grit, I think the Giant has unfortunately gotten (and is getting even in this thread) some very skewed impressions of what SoIaF is really like. It is not like a fantasy version of Frank Miller. There are characters like Jon Snow and Davos Seaworth who are more or less unambiguously good and yet still generally do quite well for themselves; who, in fact, never torture or rape or murder anyone, not even when they're bored. Villains can and do suffer for their actions, and in fact some of the most delightfully karmic fates are met by villains if you have the patience to wait for it, with still others very obviously building up to such fates. When important characters die, especially PoV character, it's pretty much always a consequence of their own actions and decisions and often quite poetic. The series is not an ode to nihilism and not a call to moral apathy.

But whatever. Regardless of whether he'd like it, he doesn't have time to find out, so this is all really just arguing for the sake of fun. Much like the rest of the message board.

[Mammal]

But whatever. Regardless of whether he'd like it, he doesn't have time to find out, so this is all really just arguing for the sake of fun. Much like the rest of the message board.

Arguing for the sake of fun??? You are so, so wrong. No one ever argues for the sake of fun, are we reading the same forums?!?1! All I'm seeing are people who agree with me, and people who are totally wrong. This is dead serious.

:smalltongue:

[Taelas]

You can see hints of Miller's later misogyny in both "The Dark Knight Returns" and "Batman: Year One". In the latter, the character of Selina Kyle is a notorious example.

Like I said, I can't disagree. He's well-known for it. But at least it isn't as prevalent in Year One as I heard it becomes later.

[Knaight]

The thread has been all over the place, admittedly, but the big issue is comparisons between OotS and SoIaF.

And summed up: OotS and SoIaF are two very, very different series.

One is a sort of blend of high fantasy and comedy, in which the heroes are generally heroes and villains are generally villains and we can reasonably expect that by the end the former will triumph over the latter one way or another. Yeah, the heroes are a bit ineffectual right now next to Tarquin and Team Evil, but I think general expectation is that it won't be like that forever.


I'd probably go a step further in the differentiation here. OotS is a story that heavily features the goodness of people, and how they manage to be good despite their struggles. There are plenty of characters that don't fit into this, but within the OotS it pretty much sums up everybody - even Belkar, at this point, is becoming a better person. A Song of Ice and Fire is about how people can be terrible to each other, and about how feudalism is a miserable system that hurts people. It also gets this across really, really poorly sometimes - as can be seen by some of the worse elements of the fanbase, or criticism like Neriana's.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

The thing I like about George RR Martin and "gritty realism" is the lack of foregone conclusions.

If James Bond gets in a firefight with a dozen Russian soldiers, James is going to win. You know he's going to, the conventions of the genre demand it. It's a con. The author is claiming "Uh oh, get excited! Bond is in danger!" but he's not and we know he's not. The whole scene is an insult to my intelligence.

Bond isn't a hero, he isn't facing risk and danger to help others. He lives in a world where there isn't any risk, so does Conan, so does Aragorn, so does Superman. They live in worlds were doing the right thing, doing the safe thing, doing the thing that will make you prosper, are all guaranteed to be identical by the moralizing rules of the genre. There's nothing particularly heroic about doing the right thing in Hollywood, everything will turn out fine for you.

The world isn't like that, reality isn't governed by a kindly author who makes sure everything turns out well in the end. If you oppose evil you might fail. You might suffer. *That's* what makes opposing evil heroic. Heroism is only possible if loss is possible, and it plainly is in SoI&F.

If there are things that Ned just won't do and lines he just won't cross that makes him heroic. His willingness to die (and not in a uplifting noble way, in a messy nasty senseless way) rather than violate his principles is only moving if it is a real choice, and it's only a real choice if there are costs.

[Chuikov]

I'd probably go a step further in the differentiation here. OotS is a story that heavily features the goodness of people, and how they manage to be good despite their struggles. There are plenty of characters that don't fit into this, but within the OotS it pretty much sums up everybody - even Belkar, at this point, is becoming a better person. A Song of Ice and Fire is about how people can be terrible to each other, and about how feudalism is a miserable system that hurts people. It also gets this across really, really poorly sometimes - as can be seen by some of the worse elements of the fanbase, or criticism like Neriana's.

That summation reads more like 'why I dislike SoIaF and like OotS' than like an accurate description of the series. Its a description massively inconsistent with the character arc of Theon or Jaime or Davos or Jon or Brienne. Theon and Jaime start as awful people and after terrible events strike them start to realize just how awful they really are and slowly start down the path of redemption. Davos, Jon, Sam and Brienne are more-or-less good, have always been good, will probably always be good, even as they're repeatedly put to the test in that regard.

Others, like Arya and Sansa, are coarsened by events but time will still tell where their paths lead. Dany tries to be good and often fails badly, making things so much worse, but she at least is trying. Still others, like Cersei and the Greyjoys, are straight-up villain protagonists, but they can be fun to read.

Simply put, if you're reading it as 'feudalism sucks and everyone is awful', I think you have a very thin view of the series.

[Lombard]

George R. R. Martin is awesome. Frank Miller is awesome. OoTS is awesome.

Arrogant-sounding sermonizers like to say the opening yourself first to the greatness of what you encounter, rather than judging vis-a-vis conformity to preset preferences, leads to more joy for you and for others of you. Or that a pitiable river might be a lovely brook. But hey your glass isn't likely to often get filled more than 50% so you decide.

[Flame of Anor]

Arrrrghhh! Cover that up for the Unsullied! Quickly!

No one needs to cover up anything--there's a spoiler warning in the thread title.


That's a shame, but I can definitely understand why you'd feel the need to avoid Discworld until OotS is done. I do really recommend reading "Guards, Guards!" the first book in the "Ankh-Morpork City Watch" section of the series, which plays with a lot of tropes about law and order, how a jaded old copper might view an idealistic young Lawful Good fellow, why an assassin might be the best choice to run a Chaotic city like Ankh-Morpork (which has a lot of Lankhmar in its DNA) and why buying baby swamp dragons and then abandoning them is wrong!

Definitely. Giant, whenever you decide to let yourself read Discworld, don't stop before reading a few of the City Watch books. They are pretty certainly the best (except maaaybe the Moist books).


The thing I like about George RR Martin and "gritty realism" is the lack of foregone conclusions.

...

reality isn't governed by a kindly author who makes sure everything turns out well in the end. If you oppose evil you might fail. You might suffer. *That's* what makes opposing evil heroic. Heroism is only possible if loss is possible, and it plainly is in SoI&F.

If there are things that Ned just won't do and lines he just won't cross that makes him heroic. His willingness to die (and not in a uplifting noble way, in a messy nasty senseless way) rather than violate his principles is only moving if it is a real choice, and it's only a real choice if there are costs.

You make it sound like there are only the two possibilities: James Bond and Ned Stark. But there is a happy medium between them, where the hero makes real sacrifices but they actually mean something. Ned's devotion to principle was heroic, but what did it accomplish? It got him killed, put Joffrey on the throne, sent Arya on the run, and plunged Westeros into war. And, yes, bad things like that do happen in real life.

But that's just it: we already know that. We can look at real life for that. What we need is a hero to look up to for hope that the bad things won't get the last word--a hero whose sacrifice actually means something. As G.K. Chesterton said, "Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon." We can read our gritty GRRM for fun if we like, but for true inspiration we should look to authors like Tolkien, Lewis, Dostoyevsky, and even perhaps the Giant.

[Chuikov]

No one needs to cover up anything--there's a spoiler warning in the thread title.

There is, but the spoiler says 'Game of Thrones spoiler', which is both singular and could be referring to the TV series in which the particular event mentioned hasn't happened yet and won't be happening for probably another 2 seasons.

[FlawedParadigm]

There's nothing wrong with Superman. Most writers don't understand the character. Those who do, like Alan Moore, John Byrne, Louise Simonson, Bruce Timm, Paul Dini, Grant Morrison, Joe Kelly, or Kurt Busiek, have written amazing works, while most of the other writers have tried and failed to write anything memorable.

Also, you do know that Peter Parker made a pact with Mephisto to save his Aunt May's life and undo the revelation of his secret identity during "Civil War", right? Also Peter Parker is no longer the Amazing Spider-Man. His brain was rewritten by Doctor Octopus, who is running around as the villainous "Superior Spider-Man". SpOck doesn't accidentally kill bad guys, he murders them out of a sense of smug superiority.

I'm guessing you missed the part where I specifically pointed out that when referring to Spider-Man, I was using the past tense for a reason...?

[Ring_of_Gyges]

You make it sound like there are only the two possibilities: James Bond and Ned Stark. But there is a happy medium between them, where the hero makes real sacrifices but they actually mean something. Ned's devotion to principle was heroic, but what did it accomplish?
Bond and Stark are polar extremes, but one can enjoy and get value out of stories on lots of different points on that continuum.

What Ned's devotion means is left as an exercise to the reader. What makes the story adult is that the author doesn't supply easy answers to moral questions. The reader has to engage with the work more deeply and form their own ideas about what's good.

His alternative was causing the murder of three children. Laying down your life to accomplish no more than that is meaningful IMO. The fact that you can see Ned's death as a meaningless waste and I can see it as a profound moral choice is evidence that there is something complex and interesting going on.

A morality tale which lays out clear good guys and bad guys just doesn't accomplish that.

That's the reason I find Redcloak infinitely more interesting than Xykon for example. Xykon is mustache twirling evil, Redcloak actually makes you think about his plan and whether or not he has a good point. No one argues about Hinjo's alignment, people go nuts trying to understand Miko. Genuine moral dilemmas without pat answers are what drama is *about*.

[Porthos]

Genuine moral dilemmas without pat answers are what drama is *about*.

Yes, but I would point out that The Order of the Stick is not a drama. :smallwink: At least I wouldn't characterize it as such. It may have many dramatic moments and arcs. Very dramatic moments. But I still think, after all that has happened in the strip, that it's roots are outside the realm of what I would consider 'drama'. One's milage may vary, of course.

And the James Bond films haven't claimed to be dramas for a long time, if ever.

[Lombard]

We can read our gritty GRRM for fun if we like, but for true inspiration we should look to authors like Tolkien, Lewis, Dostoyevsky, and even perhaps the Giant.

Lol thank you for, erm, illuminating the disconnect.

[The Giant]

If James Bond gets in a firefight with a dozen Russian soldiers, James is going to win. You know he's going to, the conventions of the genre demand it. It's a con. The author is claiming "Uh oh, get excited! Bond is in danger!" but he's not and we know he's not. The whole scene is an insult to my intelligence.

Bond isn't a hero, he isn't facing risk and danger to help others. He lives in a world where there isn't any risk, so does Conan, so does Aragorn, so does Superman. They live in worlds were doing the right thing, doing the safe thing, doing the thing that will make you prosper, are all guaranteed to be identical by the moralizing rules of the genre. There's nothing particularly heroic about doing the right thing in Hollywood, everything will turn out fine for you.

This is a fairly ridiculous argument. I might as well say that the characters of ASOIAF are also not heroic because they live in a very popular novel series which will stay in print for decades to come, allowing them to continue to exist in the early novels even if they die in the later ones. Or the characters of the TV show should have known what was coming because it was in the books first. You can't blame characters inside the narrative for conventions that are dictated wholly outside it.

With a few obvious postmodern exceptions like OOTS itself, characters do not know they live in a world where they cannot lose. Within the context of their own lives, every heroic act they take may result in their death. Therefore, whatever meta-awareness you possess that you seemingly cannot suspend for the duration of the story, that's your problem, not the author's. Ian Fleming shouldn't be required to write an equal number of stories where James Bond get horribly murdered just so you accept the premise that he's in danger in the rest. Use your frickin' imagination.

[Giggling Ghast]

I just wanna toss in my two cents here that Conan is rarely concerned with doing the right thing. The man spent a good portion of his life as a thief and a pirate. He frequently prospers (ie. gets phat loot and lives high off the hog for a while) and frequently loses (ie. ends up worse than when he started).

[IronFist]

I just wanna toss in my two cents here that Conan is rarely concerned with doing the right thing.

As a matter of fact, neither is James Bond (not even in the movies).

About aSoIaF, I disagree with anyone that thinks it's just dark and bleak. Westeros can obviously be a better place - we see Westeros as a better place in Dunk & Egg. Dunk is your standard valiant knight. The point of aSoIaF is that all the politics, all the war and everything that divides us should not matter because there is a greater evil and we should all be in this together. Who is king and who isn't is not the point of aSoIaF. It never was. It's about who is going to stand against darkness.

Really, everyone should read Dunk & Egg to see Fireball's son writing "HERO" and "JUSTICE" all over their faces in the second book. Only after reading Dunk & Egg do you realize how Brienne's arc in A Feast For Crows is basically her trying to be Dunk in a world that's gone too gray.

[Taelas]

With a few obvious postmodern exceptions like OOTS itself, characters do not know they live in a world where they cannot lose. Within the context of their own lives, every heroic act they take may result in their death. Therefore, whatever meta-awareness you possess that you seemingly cannot suspend for the duration of the story, that's your problem, not the author's. Ian Fleming shouldn't be required to write an equal number of stories where James Bond get horribly murdered just so you accept the premise that he's in danger in the rest. Use your frickin' imagination.

Of course it's the reader's problem if they can't suspend their disbelief. I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.

But knowing that the hero is going to win because he is the hero can get tiresome. It is refreshing to encounter stories where that premise is broken.

[Porthos]

It is refreshing to encounter stories where that premise is broken.

OTOH, the pendulum can swing too far the other way. One of the criticisms of the so-called Nineties Anti-Hero (or whatever label you want to throw on the time period/genre) was so many people copying the successful edgy gritty 'realistic' iconic characters of the late 80s/early 90s without realizing what made them fresh.

If everyone is a moody, surly, trenchcoat wearing Bad Boy/Girl who doesn't take guff from no one while tryin' to make it in this bad bad world, it can be just as tiring.

Frankly the idea that idealistic stories where we 'know' the hero is going to win (and be heroic while doing so) haven't been the norm for sometime IMO.

Personally I think the overabundance of the stories you're talking about is the reason why the backlash to the surly anti-heroes came about.

And if the pendulum swings back to far once again? Well, the cycle repeats. :smallwink:

[SN137]

This is a fairly ridiculous argument.
Isn't it his opinion and tastes though ? He was just saying "The thing I like about George RR Martin and "gritty realism" is the lack of foregone conclusions" , and then compared it to James bond so you could see a counterexample where there were a few foregone conclusions . "The thing I like" is usually what someone says when expressing their tastes , isn't it ? I don't see how tastes can be ridiculous ....

You can't blame characters inside the narrative for conventions that are dictated wholly outside it.
He didn't , he said he liked when the convention of main characters being invincible was subverted . No judgement of the characters themselves was implied as far as I could see .

whatever meta-awareness you possess that you seemingly cannot suspend
Hey we can't help it, it's a serious problem! :smallwink:

that's your problem, not the author's.
Indeed it is (except to the extent that less people buy their books, although Ian Flemming's writing style certainly hasn't seen him too badly), he must rectify it by searching for different authors he does like(which he did). Except I don't think he said every author should write how he/she (it?) likes , or even insulted them (which is fairly amazing to me, have you read some of the comments about Stephenie Meyer ?)

Ian Fleming shouldn't be required to write an equal number of stories where James Bond get horribly murdered just so you accept the premise that he's in danger in the rest.
Now I definitely didn't see him saying anything like that in his post .

Use your frickin' imagination.
Is there some list of rules to what you're meant to do in private leisure activities ? :smallbiggrin:

[T-O-E]

Maybe Shakespeare (who killed off a lot of characters in his tragedies) got reincarnated as Rich Burlew who got hired to ghostwrite for George R. R. Martin?

It's more plausible for it to be Edward de Vere (http://oxfraud.com/OX-ed-the-undead). If he can write The Tempest while also 10 years dead, this shouldn't be a problem.


Personally I think the overabundance of the stories you're talking about is the reason why the backlash to the surly anti-heroes came about.

And if the pendulum swings back to far once again? Well, the cycle repeats. :smallwink:

The good vs evil stories seem to be a subversion of more morally ambiguous ones, going from our oldest extant literature. I am constantly surprised at how some ASOIAF readers have fundamentally misread the books. What GRRM does is really nothing new, he just presents it in a different way. The idea that ASOIAF is a deconstruction of fantasy is illusory and clearly untrue. He uses an utterly ridiculous amount of prophecies starting with book 2, for example.

I've actually read someone seriously suggest that ASOIAF's grey morality (it's not, you might as well say Skeletor is morally ambiguous or that Sauron is a grey character*) is something new, which baffled me. This was in Homer and was done so much better since every character --even Polyphemus and Antinoos, even the gods-- is morally ambiguous . It's occurred to me that people aren't really reading the books so much as what they want the books to be.

*People like to forget about the Bloody Mummers when they say things like this.

[IronFist]

The idea that ASOIAF is a deconstruction of fantasy is illusory and clearly untrue.
So much this.


It's occurred to me that people aren't really reading the books so much as what they want the books to be.

Could be, but I believe it's mostly about not reading much other than these specific books.

[The Giant]

Isn't it his opinion and tastes though ? He was just saying "The thing I like about George RR Martin and "gritty realism" is the lack of foregone conclusions" , and then compared it to James bond so you could see a counterexample where there were a few foregone conclusions . "The thing I like" is usually what someone says when expressing their tastes , isn't it ? I don't see how tastes can be ridiculous ....

He didn't , he said he liked when the convention of main characters being invincible was subverted . No judgement of the characters themselves was implied as far as I could see .

He specifically said that they weren't heroes. Not that he didn't like that sort of hero, but instead that they were objectively not heroes. That is a judgment on the characters. If you present your opinion and tastes as if they were fact, you open it up to being challenged. I contend that James Bond and Superman are heroes—practically by definition in Superman's case—whether or not he cares for their stories.

There is a qualitative difference between saying, "I like red peppers, I don't like green peppers," and saying, "I like red peppers, green peppers are not food." The former is inarguable, the latter? Not so much.

[Sunken Valley]

The point of James Bond and Superman is not if they will get out of this. It is How Will They Get Out of This? This is the point of any plot with external conflict. No one thinks Tarquin will kill all the order. The tension is wondering how they can get out

[The Pilgrim]

If James Bond gets in a firefight with a dozen Russian soldiers, James is going to win. You know he's going to, the conventions of the genre demand it. It's a con. The author is claiming "Uh oh, get excited! Bond is in danger!" but he's not and we know he's not. The whole scene is an insult to my intelligence.

Bond isn't a hero, he isn't facing risk and danger to help others. He lives in a world where there isn't any risk, so does Conan, so does Aragorn, so does Superman. They live in worlds were doing the right thing, doing the safe thing, doing the thing that will make you prosper, are all guaranteed to be identical by the moralizing rules of the genre. There's nothing particularly heroic about doing the right thing in Hollywood, everything will turn out fine for you.

The problem with James Bond is not the genre, it is that he is as ridiculosly bad written as renaissance chivalric books. The problem is not that he succeeds, it's that the way he "succeeds" is unvelieable, boring and predictable.

I mean, I've yet to see a James Bond movie or book that doesn't kills my suspension of disbelief in the first five minutes.

[FlawedParadigm]

Man, Rich, somehow I thought you slept less than I do. Or maybe you do. I get 20-25 hours a week. Average, anyhow. Looks like I'll be lucky if I make it to 16 this week.

GRRM's books have their heroes, Brienne or the Kingbreaker probably being the most obvious. There are also character who intend to be heroes, but haven't the means or morality, or characters who have the means and morality but not the desire. That's one of the things I like about the story; people are as varied and interesting as they are in our world. The verisimilitude is incredible.

Actually, looking with a critical eye, there's a wide spectrum of heroes (so long as we're judging them by intent rather than strict effectiveness); anti-villains, heroic cowards, cowardly "heroes", heroes raised from the dirt, former heroes brought low, false heroes, and probably some others I've left out. Again, there's a lot of that in the Order too, although I think you explore more about what makes heroes into heroes and why characters choose to try being heroic, whereas George writes more about internal struggles they face, which was something you noted admiring in some Superman stories.

Although in comparing the two works, I suddenly wonder what politics are like outside of the Empire of Blood. We had some ideas of what it was like in what used to be Azure City, but other than those two locales, unless I missed something, we really don't know about any politics in any other human nation or any of the four "allies" Hinjo tried to muster or anything of that sort. Of course I understand the reason we don't know this is because it's not ultimately important to the story you're telling, but it might be an interesting thing for book commentary or to speak about at a convention. Not super detailed or anything, just an idea of how many human/elven/dwarven nations there are, their attitudes towards each other, any major wars or other events that defined why the Stickverse is as it is.

(Granted, I'm greedy. I'd be willing to learn probably about as much about the Stickverse as you'd be willing to tell. I wouldn't be disappointed in seeing other stories set here once the Order's story is over.)

[The Giant]

The point of James Bond and Superman is not if they will get out of this. It is How Will They Get Out of This? This is the point of any plot with external conflict. No one thinks Tarquin will kill all the order. The tension is wondering how they can get out

Yes, exactly.

It's the difference between watching a stage magician doing a trick and watching a daredevil do a motorcycle jump. James Bond is the magician; you know upfront that there is zero chance of that woman really getting sawed in half and her organs spilling onto the stage, but you watch because you want to see how it works and if you can figure it out. Conversely, it sounds like some would categorize ASOIAF as the daredevil; there is a very real chance that he's taking a header into that canyon, breaking his neck, and never walking again. Or not; there's no way to tell until it happens. If that knowledge makes the daredevil's act more exciting for you, then cool. Good for you. But it doesn't make the magician's show not entertainment just because the ultimate outcome is known by everyone in the room before it begins.

[FlawedParadigm]

Hm. My scorecard for James Bond was always a combination of "what neat gadgets will be involved", "what use other than their intended one will he find for them", and "who will suffer so that James can succeed and how will he feel about that?" Which I suppose if I change "gadgets" for "powers" would provide impetus for reading Superman more often, but then I skip about half the Bond films too. It's always fascinating how many different reasons people can find to read the exact same material, or how many different ways the can interpret the same words.

[The Giant]

Although in comparing the two works, I suddenly wonder what politics are like outside of the Empire of Blood. We had some ideas of what it was like in what used to be Azure City, but other than those two locales, unless I missed something, we really don't know about any politics in any other human nation or any of the four "allies" Hinjo tried to muster or anything of that sort. Of course I understand the reason we don't know this is because it's not ultimately important to the story you're telling, but it might be an interesting thing for book commentary or to speak about at a convention. Not super detailed or anything, just an idea of how many human/elven/dwarven nations there are, their attitudes towards each other, any major wars or other events that defined why the Stickverse is as it is.

In order to write that, I'd have to decide it all first, and I have little or no interest in it. Not that I couldn't find it in my heart to write a story with detailed politics, but that OOTS is so clearly not that story that I can't imagine hammering the square peg into that particular round hole.

The world of OOTS is ultimately a paper-thin Anyworld, except for those specific things that influence the plot directly like the creation story or Tarquin's scheme. There's a reason why most of the place names in the comic are things like "Wooden Forest" and "Barren Desert," and it's to intentionally de-emphasize the specifics of the world.

[FlawedParadigm]

Fair enough. Like I said, I realise that they're details that don't matter to this story, but might become interesting if any other stories were set in the same world. Actually it says something that you can establish so very little about the world the heroes are trying to save and still make us hope they succeed based almost entirely on how badly they want to succeed, even if we don't necessarily understand the specifics of what they're saving.

[SN137]

He specifically said that they weren't heroes. Not that he didn't like that sort of hero, but instead that they were objectively not heroes. That is a judgment on the characters.
Unless they think that heroes are in mortal danger rather then just thinking it . In which case the statement is 100% correct as far as I can see. Now if you use a different definition he is wrong , but that is a semantic argument , and even his definition being wrong wouldn't change the substance of his argument . (I'm fairly certain websters hasn't tested this specific topic , so I'm not sure how one of you would come out right either way)
I'm still not seeing the judgement on story characters per se ? More just that they use a different definition of the word, which is not obviously a wrong definition any more then yours is a wrong definition ?
Out of curiosity where would you place Don Quixote or someone who did something heroic during a dream under your definition ? :smallwink:

[Chuikov]

Fair enough. Like I said, I realise that they're details that don't matter to this story, but might become interesting if any other stories were set in the same world. Actually it says something that you can establish so very little about the world the heroes are trying to save and still make us hope they succeed based almost entirely on how badly they want to succeed, even if we don't necessarily understand the specifics of what they're saving.

OotS and SoIaF are radically different stories. War, politics and the ongoing chess match for power between the great families of Westeros are the meat and drink of GRRM's series, even if the looming threat of the Others serves as a perpetual reminder of how ultimately meaningless and self-destructive such internal bickering is, and he's done a ridiculously good job at making it all seem as if it has the history and complexity of a real society. The detail borders on the Tolkienesque, though since GRRM isn't an Oxford-trained linguist the language creation aspect was fobbed off on a genuine linguist and then only for the sake of the TV show.

That kind of complexity doesn't really fit OotS, though. Its intent from the start was parody and humor with a big helping of drama being added over the course of time until we reach the present, when we're expected to both be engrossed by the story and to laugh at the jokes. A detailed look at the internal politics of the Empire of Blood would feel really, really weird in a world which has played virtually all of its locations for humor.

It's like Breaking Bad and Mad Men are both great shows but I don't ever want to see Don Draper lose all his money, get lung cancer and start a meth lab to provide for his family.

[FlawedParadigm]

Right, and that's why I said I didn't desire or expect any kind of deep investigation because they're different stories and genres even, it would just be nice to know a few small things, like if this world has generally been peaceful or warring, how big a threat monsters are to daily living, or for example if villains of Xykon's calibre are rare because the circumstances for them to exist only rarely come up, or because many governments actively suppress Sorcerers/Necromancers or another reason. Stuff philosophers and historians might debate.

I mean I appreciate that the heroes want to save the world, but consider we've seen Azure City (overrun, occupied, possibly not even worth the saving between the amount of effort involved and the fact that goblinoid races probably do deserve a fair shake in the world), the EoB which is probably not a place many people live by choice, Greysky, which is a miserable hole, and Cliffport which we don't know much of politically other than they recognised the sovereign nation of Gobbotopia (and if I recall, supported their right to trade slaves, which probably sets them at least slightly cynical side as well.)

TL;DR - From what we know, we seem to be running out of places worth the saving. Sandsedge is seriously the most pleasant place we've been.

[Kish]

Unless they think that heroes are in mortal danger rather then just thinking it . In which case the statement is 100% correct as far as I can see.
That's approximately as valid as, "Maybe s/he meant that heroes have to be elves." If s/he or you thinks the only characters who can be heroes are ones whom the author has decided to kill off, or to flip a coin to decide whether to kill off, then s/he/you are simply wrong. "Words don't actually mean anything" is neither clever, nor original, nor funny.

[Unisus]

Unless they think that heroes are in mortal danger rather then just thinking it . In which case the statement is 100% correct as far as I can see. Now if you use a different definition he is wrong , but that is a semantic argument , and even his definition being wrong wouldn't change the substance of his argument . (I'm fairly certain websters hasn't tested this specific topic , so I'm not sure how one of you would come out right either way)
I'm still not seeing the judgement on story characters per se ? More just that they use a different definition of the word, which is not obviously a wrong definition any more then yours is a wrong definition ?
Out of curiosity where would you place Don Quixote or someone who did something heroic during a dream under your definition ? :smallwink:

So you say if someone risks his life to save someone else, he is a hero, but if he only thinks he risks his life while actually being not in mortal danger, he is not? Let's say i see someone aiming a gun at someone, and i decide to jump in and put the target out of the line of fire, thus risking to be shot myself, me being a hero is dependent on whether the gun is loaded or not? And there i always thought heroism is about defeating one's fears...

If i do something without knowing i'm in mortal danger, does that make me a hero then? Because, you know, i actually could have died.

[The Giant]

Unless they think that heroes are in mortal danger rather then just thinking it . In which case the statement is 100% correct as far as I can see. Now if you use a different definition he is wrong , but that is a semantic argument , and doesn't change the meaning of his argument . (I'm fairly certain websters hasn't tested this specific topic , so I'm not sure how one of you would come out right either way)
I'm still not seeing the judgement on story characters per se ? More just that they use a different definition of the word, which is not obviously a wrong definition any more then yours is a wrong definition ?

Words mean what they mean, and if someone didn't mean that, then they chose their word poorly. I just checked; there are no dictionary definitions of "hero" that James Bond or Superman do not objectively fit, except for the sandwich. I fully acknowledge that if the poster's intent was to say that James Bond is not a hoagie, then my response was uncalled for.

More to the point, I'm not going to quibble with you over what a third party may or may not have meant with the words they typed. If you want to engage me in a discussion, take a position and argue it. If you think James Bond isn't a hero because he appears in stories that are written a certain way, then say why. But stop telling me that, "So-and-so didn't mean this, so you shouldn't have said what you said!"

[FlawedParadigm]

And thus began the "What kind of sandwich is your favourite hero most like?" thread.

[cheesecake]

If you don't like Arya, you have no soul. :p

Arya makes me so angry. I read all the books, WAITING for her to get back to kill someone important. Its been awhile since I read the series. The boy king gets poisioned! I wanted Arya to stick needle in his eye. You finish reading the last book and she is off running around living in some really strange society thing killing people.

My favorite character turned out to be Jon snow.

We are never ever getting back together!

Now everyone is dead but Sansa, and she is a waste of space!

I wrote those books mostly out of my memory.

[T-O-E]

I wrote those books mostly out of my memory.

So you really are writing here? Are you actually a martian?

[SN137]

If you want to engage me in a discussion, take a position and argue it. If you think James Bond isn't a hero because he appears in stories that are written a certain way, then say why.
Oh ok .... James bond isn't a hero because he can't die . Heroism is defined (at least in one definition) by courage , which is bravery in the face of danger. If he's missing one of lifes greatest dangers ,(which is present in all real people and characters in dark and gritty fantasy series), it's cessation , he can hardly be as heroic as if he could die .
So James bond isn't a hero , or at least not a complete one .
Be if he isn't a hero he must clearly, at least partly , be a cheese and tomato sandwich.

so you shouldn't have said what you said!
Oh no I don't like telling people what to do , I was just trying to pick your brain , and was concerned that I couldn't read. :smallwink:

[factotum]

Oh ok .... James bond isn't a hero because he can't die .

That's simply not true. James Bond never *has* died, AFAIK, but that doesn't mean he can't within the rules of his world, merely that he doesn't die because the stories would be a darned sight shorter if he did! You're confusing the usual plot protection afforded a main character with actual immortality, which is something else entirely.

[Unisus]

Oh ok .... James bond isn't a hero because he can't die . Heroism is defined (at least in one definition) by courage , which is bravery in the face of danger. If he's missing one of lifes greatest dangers ,(which is present in all real people and characters in dark and gritty fantasy series), it's cessation , he can hardly be as heroic as if he could die .
So James bond isn't a hero , or at least not a complete one .

Once more for understanding: So you say courage is worth nothing, if you are not in mortal danger, even though you have no chance to know you are not in mortal danger but rather convinced you are? And the other way round you get to be the hero if you were in mortal danger without knowing it, even though it did not need the slightest bit of courage?

You are aware you actually contradict your own definition of heroism?

[SN137]

That's simply not true. James Bond never *has* died, AFAIK, but that doesn't mean he can't within the rules of his world, merely that he doesn't die because the stories would be a darned sight shorter if he did! You're confusing the usual plot protection afforded a main character with actual immortality, which is something else entirely.
A very logical and well reasoned argument . Bond may have a character shield , but he may in fact not be invincible. He could die in the next installment .... if Ian Flemming weren't dead .
Although I suppose hollywood could run out of fresh ideas eventually , if you're counting those guys . But yeah you're in essence correct .

Once more for understanding: So you say courage is worth nothing, if you are not in mortal danger, even though you have no chance to know you are not in mortal danger but rather convinced you are? And the other way round you get to be the hero if you were in mortal danger without knowing it, even though it did not need the slightest bit of courage?
In one definition courage is defined as the strength to persevere and face danger , not what you percieve is danger . No danger ='s no courage , no understanding of danger also ='s no courage .

You are aware you actually contradict your own definition of heroism?
No I did not . Also , not my definition but a dictionaries .

[pendell]

I think the thing to realize is that there have been a LOT of stories about these characters, and only some of them truly realize their potential. As SowZ said, you often have better luck with adaptations to other media, because they can distill the essence of the character and provide closure that comics aren't allowed to have (because DC needs them to continue forever). EDIT: Then again, the Green Lantern movie happened.

That said, while Final Crisis was better than that blurb makes it sound, it is not something I would pick as one of the best Darkseid stories. It's Grant Morrison, so, expect some weirdness.

Which is precisely why I stopped reading Marvel or DC but read your work and Manga like "Lone Wolf and Cub" or anime like "Gurrenn Lagann". Because the stories have a defined beginning, middle, and end, the characters are allowed to develop, get married, get killed ,face the consequences for their actions. The need to keep the characters alive in DC and Marvel means that essentially the Reset button is pushed at the end of every arc. It's the same reason I gave up on Beetle Bailey and Blondie but liked "For Better or for Worse."

I grant you that some really riveting stories and arcs can be told in the DC and Marvel universes, but I greatly prefer the manga format where every story is distinct. When the story ends, tell a new one. Don't keep the same characters in a kind of stasis that never changes , never allows them to be anything other than stock characters.

When I was a kid , I was a big fan of the GI Joe series. And what finally broke my interest in marvel was what happened to Cobra Commander. They took him on a long journey of self-discovery, back to his roots, back to his son, had him decide he'd had enough only to be shot down by one of his own men. It was poignant. It was bittersweet. It was appropriate.

Then , a couple of dozen issues later he comes back from the dead with his character reset back to zero and kills off pretty much everything and everyone who had occurred in the previous arc. I guess Marvel had run out of interesting things to say with the other characters, and Serpentor or Fred VII wasn't carrying his weight as the new main villain. So they had to bring back the original cobra commander. I dunno if it worked or not, because at that point I flatly lost interest.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Unisus]

In one definition courage is defined as mental strength to persevere and face danger , not what you percieve is danger . No danger ='s no courage , no understanding of danger also ='s no courage


Sorry, but that just does not make sense. If it's the "mental strength to persevere and face danger" then it has to do with what you perceive as danger, not with actually is danger. If someone does something heroic while only thinking there was danger he shows that he would do the same even if there was true danger. And that's courage.

[SN137]

Sorry, but that just does not make sense. If it's the "mental strength to persevere and face danger" then it has to do with what you perceive as danger, not with actually is danger. If someone does something heroic while only thinking there was danger he shows that he would do the same even if there was true danger. And that's courage.
Apologies . I meant the one which deals with the quality of "facing danger" , I may have gotten my definition mixed up with yours because there are like 20 definitions. If they cannot face (arguably) life's greatest danger, death, then they cannot be completely courageous , and hence cannot be truly heroic.
So I hold to my claim that james bond is a cheese and tomato sandwich .

[The Giant]

In one definition courage is defined as the strength to persevere and face danger , not what you percieve is danger . No danger ='s no courage , no understanding of danger also ='s no courage .

OK, great. Now we're getting somewhere.

I fundamentally disagree with this statement on every level.

And honestly, at the point where the statement, "James Bond does not have courage because the story will never let him lose," becomes meaningful, so does the statement, "James Bond does not have courage because he is not a human being, he is a series of words written on sheets of paper bound together." Which is to say, at a point that is pretty ****ing meaningless for any discussion of fiction.

[Unisus]

If they cannot face (arguably) life's greatest danger, death, then they cannot be completely courageous , and hence cannot be truly heroic.

But Heroes like James Bond are facing death. The fact that they are not dying is nothing they do or even could know. You put it as if James Bond would read the story and then make his decisions in the knowledge that he survives in the end.

[Shale]

Courage can't be defined in terms of what is really dangerous, instead of what you perceive to be dangerous. Otherwise it takes more courage to face down someone with a real gun that you think is fake, than a fake gun that you think is real - which is, to me, nonsense.

[Michaeler]

Dare I mention that Bond has almost died on a number of occasions? Not so much in the films, sure, because they tone down the more realistic injuries in favour of being chained in the path of a laser beam or some other incredible plot. But if you didn't have the benefit of knowing he lives you could well expect the novel of Live and Let Die to end with him bleeding out in the remains of his victory.

[The Pilgrim]

If you are looking for a character who can't die and knows it, then I'm affraid you are disussing about James Bond when you should be discussing about Achilles.

[Flame of Anor]

The fact that you can see Ned's death as a meaningless waste and I can see it as a profound moral choice is evidence that there is something complex and interesting going on.

Whoa, hold your horses there. I never said that I didn't see it as a profound moral choice. It certainly is one, and one which I respect--but the universe/GRRM punished him in a soul-crushingly huge way for that choice. I'm not saying that characters don't make profound moral choices in ASOIAF, but rather that their choices are not rewarded.


If you are looking for a character who can't die and knows it, then I'm affraid you are disussing about James Bond when you should be discussing about Achilles.

On the contrary, Achilles is the exact opposite. Not only can he die, he knows that he will die, and young. I think Achilles is at least as interesting a character as James Bond. (Not that I don't like James Bond or don't think he's a real hero. One or two of you may recall I started that Pro-James Bond League thread some years ago.)

[Mammal]

In one definition courage is defined as the strength to persevere and face danger , not what you percieve is danger . No danger ='s no courage , no understanding of danger also ='s no courage .

No I did not . Also , not my definition but a dictionaries .

I don't know what dictionary you're looking at, but mine doesn't have any details about the perception of danger in the entry for hero or for courage. Hero is a person who faces danger on the behalf of others, courage is the quality necessary to face danger.

I mean, imagine a society that was afraid of, I dunno, books. In that nation, facing down books would be courageous, entering a library to save someone would be heroic. Just because the danger isn't real to you doesn't mean it's not very real to someone else.

[mhsmith]

Whoa, hold your horses there. I never said that I didn't see it as a profound moral choice. It certainly is one, and one which I respect--but the universe/GRRM punished him in a soul-crushingly huge way for that choice. I'm not saying that characters don't make profound moral choices in ASOIAF, but rather that their choices are not rewarded.



You are (IMO) misreading Ned's character if you think the universe is punishing him for that specific moral choice (yes, Varys explicitly tells him that's why here's in jail and suffering, but that does not mean Varys understands the whole story or that he's bothering to tell the truth). Ned's character made a LOT of moral choices (largely consistent with the "Lawful Good hero type who believes that his moral character gives him plot armor"):


Ordering the arrest of the most powerful noble in the kingdom (Tywin) for actions that weren't exactly treasonous (especially since as the series goes on it becomes clearer that "murdering peasants" isn't something that nobles or anyone else with power takes particularly seriously; instead, the driving issue seems to have been that Tywin acted against Stark/Tully interests)
Resigning his post in a fit of pique (proposed assassination of Daenerys) - his confrontation with Jaime, the death of his guards/friends, and his own personal injury happen AFTER he makes this irresponsible choice
Showing mercy to Cersei and kids (an interesting question: did Robert actually know about the adultery? probably not, but it's at least plausible he did know and this was driving some of his behavior)
Deciding NOT to act with Renly to seize control of the Lannisters while Robert was dying but not yet dead (this was his biggest "Lawful Stupid" moment), because it would be disrespectful or unpleasant or something dumb like that
Explicitly deciding that it's OK to throw the kingdom into a major and bloody civil war in order to make sure that a man everyone hated (Stannis) gained his "rightful" inheritance of the kingdom (morally speaking, this is where he lost his plot armor - GRRM doesn't beat this into your brain but it's pretty explicit that Ned made this choice, and it's only AFTER he makes this choice that everything falls apart for him)


To be blunt, Ned isn't punished for his heroism. He's punished because the good/heroic choices he makes (and there are some) aren't enough to overcome the incompetent and NON-heroic choices he also makes. The fact that his story is almost entirely told from his own POV, and he's doing things "for the right reasons" doesn't change the fact that he overreached his authority, made dangerous enemies, shirked his responsibilities, demanded that everyone bow to HIS moral judgement instead of trying to lead by example or actually convince/debate anyone, and was perfectly willing to let the kingdom burn in order to reinforce his own (broken) moral/ethical judgments.

To use an analogy, he's a kinder, gentler Miko. Still LG, but out of touch with reality, unafraid to wildly exceed his own authority, and he NEVER questions his own values or world view (though at least he does question his actions, so he's a good step above her on that). Miko had clearly earned her own fate. Had Ned? It's grayer there, but at the least he clearly hadn't earned plot armor.

It may be an interesting exercise to imagine the Azure City plotline told just from Miko's perspective, with maybe a few other snippets here and there. It's obvious that she's nuts when you see things from other peoples' perspective, but is it obvious from hers? It's not that hard to imagine telling a story where you get light indications that the lead lady doesn't have the world's best judgement, but you're still largely with her every step of the way and that her fate ultimate seems unfair.

It's the same with Ned. It's easy to imagine snippets from other peoples' perspective that paints him as being unhinged and out of touch with reality, and forced you to question his actions and conclusions far before he met his fate. Instead GRRM explicitly (and IMO intentionally) did NOT show you this. You're along for the ride until he meets his bloody fate, and it's only in later books (most notably when you see Jaime's perspective on the conflict between them) that you really start to question what the heck Ned was doing and whether maybe he really did deserve his fate.

[Spoomeister]

Apologies to belabor the obvious here - this thread is long enough that this point might have already been made, sorry - but the main problem I see with sn137's assertions is that they are conflating and confusing reader knowledge with character knowledge.

We know James Bond, or insert-character-here, is highly unlikely to die, because he's the main protagonist in a popular series of stories and the point is to see how he handles various situations.

James Bond, or insert-character-here,within his story, does not know he is a character in a story and has no knowledge of any plot immunity. Bond knows on some level that he's mortal... but he faces up to various challenges anyway.

What makes a hero a hero is what they choose to fight for, and what they choose to risk, in the context of what they reasonably know in the story. That's very different from whether the story itself is satisfying for the reader overall. A character that is Protected By Plot(tm) can still be a hero.

[Goosefeather]

In one definition courage is defined as the strength to persevere and face danger , not what you percieve is danger . No danger ='s no courage , no understanding of danger also ='s no courage .


Courage is the strength to face and overcome fear, not danger. The two often go together (after all, we tend to be afraid of dangerous things), but they are not synonymous.

An strongly agoraphobic person stepping outside is being courageous, despite the fact that the open sky above them isn't actually dangerous, and the same applies in the case of other phobias (by definition, irrational fears, i.e. fears of things that do not actually present a real danger).

On the other hand, a character eating a chocolate which, although they don't know it, has a high chance of being poisoned, is not being brave - despite their coming very close to mortal danger, there is no fear involved. However, if they were eating the same chocolate while fully aware of the danger involved (because, I dunno, a supervillain is going to kill people unless they eat it), then fear and courage are factors once again.

[Porthos]

Setting aside the personal definition argument (which as people who have seen my posts on other subjects can tell I think is somewhat silly) for a moment, the idea that characters can't be heroes unless their authors are willing to kill them off for real (and that is the real argument here) is patently absurd. To do that closes off entire branches of storytelling to having heroes, which seems to me to be needlessly restrictive.

Take the various incarnations of Star Trek. We know that The Captain will get out of this mess. It's in the very nature of serialized shows with contracted actors (more on this in a bit). And sometimes they'll do so in an extremely heroic fashion. It's the, as someone mentioned above, 'How' that matters.

In better told series, the How has lasting repercussions, which shows that Death isn't the only thing that can set back and challenge people. If a character is haunted and set back by their actions, yet still goes out and fights, I'm pretty damn sure THAT character can be described as Heroic.

Now, of course, some people will pipe up that characters can die in serialized works with contract actors. Certainly true. But, unless the writers and producers are very good at hiding things (Lost comes to mind here) a significant chunk of the audience probably finds out ahead of time anyway. Besides, most people don't watch Star Trek: The Next Generation wondering if THIS is the episode where Picard finally snuffs it. It's just inherent to the genre.

And ultimately that is the key. To get back to the pepper analogy, it's perfectly fine to say that you don't like red peppers because eating them gives you horrible indigestion and gas. This tracks to the "It ruins my suspension of disbelief" stance that people have said. Great. Perfect. Don't watch/read things you don't like. More power to you. But to then turn around and say, "Thus red peppers aren't food" is, I would say, stretching the definition of food so much as to run into problems. Yes, to you, they may not be food since you can't eat them without extreme difficulty. But I think if you start walking around telling everyone else that red peppers aren't food.... Well, you're going to get arguments on whether or not you are really right. :smallsmile:

[LadyEowyn]

Having read some of the earlier posts on this thread, I'd just like to say that I enjoy this comic precisely because of the ways it is very different from ASOIAF, and it's nice to know from Rich that these differences are very deliberate and intrinsic to both the story and his worldview.

I can't know how OotS is going to end, but I can be confident in certain things, because of the spirit of the work. I can be confident that Elan, Haley, and Roy will either survive, or have their deaths be meaningful and satisfying to themselves. I can be confident that regardless of what happens to Redcloak, the strip will end with a better life for goblins in general, because Rich has made it clear that he considers their condition a fundamental injustice. I can be confident that Rich won't suddenly kill off the entire Order permanently and spend the next book focusing on internecine conflict between Tarquin's team. I can have confidence in this because the story is fundamentally an idealistic one, whereas GRRM's work is fundamentally cynical if not nihilistic, and has already killed off most of the characters who are good people and is in the process of morally destroying all those who are not yet dead.

The works represent two opposing ideologies: one, that we have a responsibility to do good and are capable of making the world a better place through are actions, and that Good actions are Good even if they are difficult; and the other, that the world is an evil place, its evil nature cannot be fundamentally changed, and good people can only defeat evil ones by resorting to evil (and - at least in the views of most of its fans I've heard from - good people are morally culpable if they do not resort to evil actions in order to defeat evil people).

I vastly prefer Rich's story and worldview, and think it is a more positive thing for the world.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

I fully acknowledge that if the poster's intent was to say that James Bond is not a hoagie, then my response was uncalled for.

I might as well say that the characters of ASOIAF are also not heroic because they live in a very popular novel series

James Bond does not have courage because he is not a human being, he is a series of words written on sheets of paper bound together.
Can we avoid the straw men please? No one has made those arguments or anything like them.

There's nothing to be gained from arguing about the semantics of "hero", if you prefer think of it as the choices not mattering. If Bond does something clever, he'll win. If Bond does something deeply stupid like get in a firefight with 20 soldiers he'll win too. It doesn't really matter what he does, whatever he does inexorably leads to victory. That's tiresome.

That's a problem with "the good-guys will always win", at least for me.

The best Superman stories aren't the ones where he knows whats right and does it successfully. The best Superman stories are where he *doesn't* know what's right and he has to struggle to work it out. That takes grey morality, ambiguity, and having to make choices where no outcome is really satisfying. Red Son is much more interesting than "Superman punches Doomsday."

That's a (separate) problem with "good is good and evil is evil and anyone honest can tell the difference".

There are good stories which work despite having both problems, but it is nice (occasionally) to read something that doesn't.

[Porthos]

There's nothing to be gained from arguing about the semantics of "hero", if you prefer think of it as the choices not mattering. If Bond does something clever, he'll win. If Bond does something deeply stupid like get in a firefight with 20 soldiers he'll win too. It doesn't really matter what he does, whatever he does inexorably leads to victory. That's tiresome.

That's a problem with "the good-guys will always win", at least for me.

But the problem isn't 'the good guy always win'. From where I am sitting your real problem with James Bond is that the stories aren't very well written. From your perspective, at least. Arguing whether or not the character is really 'heroic' or whether the characters 'face choices that really matter' is besides the point.

You point out the fact that the character 'does something stupid and isn't punished'. Then call it for what it is: Sloppy writing.

Or even better: A genre I don't like. :smallwink:

Ultimately that really is what you are saying from what I can see.

[Unisus]

There's nothing to be gained from arguing about the semantics of "hero", if you prefer think of it as the choices not mattering. If Bond does something clever, he'll win. If Bond does something deeply stupid like get in a firefight with 20 soldiers he'll win too. It doesn't really matter what he does, whatever he does inexorably leads to victory. That's tiresome.

Actually, James Bond's (if we have to stick to him) decisions DO matter. Of course he will win in the end (and he even will get the girl, that's a given), no matter what happens. But he does not know it. And while he himself survives every story, there are losses that hurt him, and that are connected to his decisions.

If a character can not be a hero when he even survives a stupid mistake, there are not many heroes in stories.

[Geordnet]

I may be a bit late to the party on these, but...


I once read about half of the first Discworld book before circumstances caused me to put it down and never find the time to finish. But unlike ASOIAF, at this point I am consciously avoiding it precisely because of similarities between OOTS and it. I'll probably still read it someday, but not any time soon.

Rich, just a note to tell you that the first three discworld novels are not indicative of the style of the other 40-ish.
I highly recommend starting with Guards! Guards! It introduces several of the most iconic characters in the series, including the one which was mentioned (Vimes). Also, it's a personal favorite. :smalltongue:



Right, and that's why I said I didn't desire or expect any kind of deep investigation because they're different stories and genres even, it would just be nice to know a few small things, like if this world has generally been peaceful or warring, how big a threat monsters are to daily living, or for example if villains of Xykon's calibre are rare because the circumstances for them to exist only rarely come up, or because many governments actively suppress Sorcerers/Necromancers or another reason. Stuff philosophers and historians might debate.
That's why we speculate. (And for some of us, the fun is in the speculation! :smalltongue:)

[Ring_of_Gyges]

But the problem isn't 'the good guy always win'. From where I am sitting your real problem with James Bond is that the stories aren't very well written. From your perspective, at least. Arguing whether or not the character is really 'heroic' or whether the characters 'face choices that really matter' is besides the point.

You point out the fact that the character 'does something stupid and isn't punished'. Then call it for what it is: Sloppy writing.

Or even better: A genre I don't like. :smallwink:
That's fair, maybe Kirk is a useful example. "Kirk will win" is a given, but if he wins in a believable way by being clever that's an interesting story I'm happy to watch. "Bond will win" because uh, the Russians all miss, cause uh, they do is fair to just call sloppy writing. Kirk and Bond in this case are just exemplars, tastes will vary about how clever any particular instance of a character is.

Really everyone should read their Aristotle and realize that virtue is a mean between two extremes. Making antagonists too inept is a mistake, making antagonists too effective is a mistake. Art lies in balancing them properly. If you find ASOFI too "grimdark" for your tastes, you're welcome to your tastes, but I quite like it. I don't think I'd want to *only* read ASOFI, but as a balance against stuff I find too saccharine it serves a valuable role. Inversion of tropes can be very refreshing.


Of course he will win in the end (and he even will get the girl, that's a given), no matter what happens. But he does not know it. Sure but I know it and the author knows it. The author is the one speaking to me and he's saying "Imagine an invulnerable sexy unstoppable killing machine, wouldn't that be cool!" and my response is generally "Meh. If he's invulnerable and unstoppable I don't really care about his story."


If a character can not be a hero when he even survives a stupid mistake, there are not many heroes in stories. See the above point about continuums and means between extremes. I'm not saying "One slip and you're dead, or else boring", it's not a boolean, I'm just saying you can slide too far in one direction and I like the occasional series which slides pretty far in the other direction.

[EnragedFilia]

I would just like to point out that there was in fact one instance in which James Bond really did die by the end of the movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Royale_(1967_film)). And more than one of him, for that matter!

[TheYell]

The problem with James Bond is not the genre, it is that he is as ridiculosly bad written as renaissance chivalric books. The problem is not that he succeeds, it's that the way he "succeeds" is unvelieable, boring and predictable.
I mean, I've yet to see a James Bond movie or book that doesn't kills my suspension of disbelief in the first five minutes.

I don't know about the modern Bond novels, and the movies are over the top, but the Fleming books were well done.

The Bond of the novels was a fatalist who spent his money as fast as he earned it, and refuses to settle down, because he figured he was going to die on assignment. He keeps pushing himself into circumstances which provide him the maximum freedom of action, where he makes reckless decisions that kill or maim a number of his companions. And so far from being invulnerable, at one point, his psychiatrist asks M to ease up on him, quoting an old Army officer that "courage is a capital sum reduced by expenditure". "I don't say our man is overdrawn, but there's a limit to everything."

I thought Fleming had some depths to him, like in "From Russia with Love" where we learn the mercenary, fickle and disloyal character of Red Grant by examining what he had in his pockets when he went swimming.

[The Pilgrim]

I don't know about the modern Bond novels, and the movies are over the top, but the Fleming books were well done.

Well, it's just that I can't belive as a character a guy who is supposed to be a master spy but whose modus operandi involves being famboyant, announcing everyone he is there, and to whom the concept of "keeping a low profile" is alien. Add the mysoginy.

I mean, in the real world, a character like Bond would never have to fear an assasination attempt from the enemy. Because the enemy would be more than glad to have him around making his job easier. If anything, Bond would have to sweat to avoid being fired by his boss in less than five minutes into the mission.

But, hey, everyone to his own taste. I respect that. :smallsmile:

[Porthos]

The Bond of the novels was a fatalist who spent his money as fast as he earned it, and refuses to settle down, because he figured he was going to die on assignment. He keeps pushing himself into circumstances which provide him the maximum freedom of action, where he makes reckless decisions that kill or maim a number of his companions. And so far from being invulnerable, at one point, his psychiatrist asks M to ease up on him, quoting an old Army officer that "courage is a capital sum reduced by expenditure". "I don't say our man is overdrawn, but there's a limit to everything."

I thought Fleming had some depths to him, like in "From Russia with Love" where we learn the mercenary, fickle and disloyal character of Red Grant by examining what he had in his pockets when he went swimming.

This gets into what TV Tropes (I know, I know - sorry :smallredface:) calls Martini Flavored and Stale Beer flavored (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpyFiction) spy fiction. It, like almost everything, is a spectrum. On the one end you have the fantastical (in most senses of the world) Super Spy who gets the guy/girl, delivers quips, and is all but a superhero. On the other end, you have the person wandering around stubbing out their cigarette as they wonder if it is all worth it as they send fellow agents on their ambiguous missions.

Ironically, as you note, the original Bond novels were far closer to the "Stale Beer" end of the spectrum than the movies turned out to be.

Of course, whether the story is any good or not depends on various factors, including the how good said writer actually is and how they decide to depict their world.

[SowZ]

It's also unfair to say that since a writer is never going to seriously consider killing the character, the character is never in danger within the books. With few, bizarre exceptions, any given moment could end with either of two outcomes. A. The character dies. B. The character lives, at least for another moment. That's basically it, the author has to make one of those two choices for each character at every plot point.

Some writers write organically and let things happen as a natural consequence. Some are more architectural and plotting. Regardless, the character living or not is always the decision of the artist. The character doesn't actually live in an unbiased world where millions of events are occurring all the time, any one of which could effect them. So a character will never die until the author decides it. Each character probably only dies once and the artist likely has a time period within the story in mind. That does not mean every other scenario in which the character lived through it wasn't real danger.

Shoot, every single event in your life and mine has ended with 'living,' (NDEs and cardiac arrest notwithstanding,) and any true story told about your life up to this point could not ever conclude with your death. That doesn't mean that when recalling the experiences of your life, none of them were legitimately dangerous.

For the same reason, Aragorn isn't going to die to an orc stab. He won't. That doesn't mean an orc stab couldn't kill him, doesn't mean that Aragorn isn't supposed to die at some point in-universe after the story stops being written, and doesn't make Aragorn any less mortal.

Its equally silly to say that 'Aragorn never faces real danger so Aragorn couldn't die even if he wanted to so death isn't even an option for him' as it is to say that 'a scene where Aragorn cooks and enjoys a nice pot roast would probably be pointless, it isn't part of the story, Tolkien had no intention of writing a chapter about pot roast and never wrote such a chapter, therefore the character of Aragorn is incapable of ever making pot roast.' The fact that Aragorn doesn't eat pot roast doesn't somehow make him incapable of it just like Aragorn not dying in a given scene doesn't mean he couldn't have died in that scene.

(I've not read those books in a long time. Please, someone confirm that Aragorn never makes a pot roast.)

The truth is, the character doesn't even die because the villain shot him or because his own choices caught up to him. Within the context of the story, we accept those as the reasons because it would be unfair to the artist not to. But in reality, the character died so the artists could get out his message or maybe just so he could finish the basement and thought his latest idea would sell. But as the Giant pointed out, that's a worthless discussion to have.

[Chuikov]

I can be confident that Rich won't suddenly kill off the entire Order permanently and spend the next book focusing on internecine conflict between Tarquin's team. I can have confidence in this because the story is fundamentally an idealistic one, whereas GRRM's work is fundamentally cynical if not nihilistic, and has already killed off most of the characters who are good people and is in the process of morally destroying all those who are not yet dead.

I keep hearing this and I keep wondering if people are reading the same books or if they've substituted the reputation of the books for the actual books in their minds. The grand total of 'most of the good characters' he's killed off, completely and obviously:

Ned and Robb.

One is a major PoV character and a real punch to the gut, as was intended. The other doesn't even get any PoV chapters and we barely know the guy as a character. His death is mostly significant because it signals the defeat of his 'side'. His fall means that we have to look for vengeance for his family in some other form than a big army marching on King's Landing.

And yet people treat these deaths as if every time a character isn't a psychopath GRRM unceremoniously has them disposed of. Nevermind Brienne and Davos and Sam and Jon, nevermind that the great bulk of PoV characters who aren't Greyjoys or Cersei tilt more towards the light grey than dark grey or black.

I don't mind someone preferring OotS over SoIaF or disliking SoIaF altogether, even though I personally like both series for different reasons. I do mind this particular criticism, which to me makes just about no sense.

[Mammal]

It's also unfair to say that since a writer is never going to seriously consider killing the character, the character is never in danger within the books.

Your whole post was really good, but I wanted to add on to this part, specifically.

Death isn't the only outcome of danger. When a character's life is at risk, their physical and emotional well being are also implicitly at risk. For all of the first book of The Hunger Games, Katniss is perpetually in danger. She doesn't die, but she's burned, poisoned, and partially deafened. People close to her die. Her family is at risk. She's obviously not going to die because she's the protagonist and there are three two more books, but that doesn't mean the danger she faces isn't real.

I think the issue that people are having is about whether or not the danger feels like it has consequences. Death is the obvious outcome of serious danger, but it's not the only one. A character could be severely injured or captured or something could happen to their friends and family. It's not like the only options are "completely unscathed" and "in a ditch, covered in petrol, on fire."

Because yes, an action story where the hero is constantly imperiled but always totally fine is tiresome. But an action story where the hero has close scrapes, is captured by the enemy, looses a friend, looses a finger, and then ultimately succeeds? Just because they're alive doesn't mean they weren't in danger or didn't suffer consequences for their actions.

In my opinion, it all comes down to the skill of the storyteller. I gave the example of The Hunger Games above, but I don't think that story is particularly well-told, and I didn't enjoy the books. What I did enjoy, however, were the Indiana Jones movies. Indy's in danger, but always survives by his wits and never suffers any long-term repercussions, but they're AWESOME.

[hamishspence]

For all of the first book of The Hunger Games, Katniss is perpetually in danger. She doesn't die, but she's burned, poisoned, and partially deafened. People close to her die. Her family is at risk. She's obviously not going to die because she's the protagonist and there are three more books, but that doesn't mean the danger she faces isn't real.
I only know of 2 more books after Hunger Games: Catching Fire, and Mockingjay. Did a 3rd come out?

[Mammal]

I only know of 2 more books after Hunger Games: Catching Fire, and Mockingjay. Did a 3rd come out?

Nope, I'm just an indifferent counter. Fixed! :smallredface:

[hamishspence]

I've only read one George RR Martin book- a sci-fi one, Tuf Voyaging- but it did seem rather cynical.

[KillianHawkeye]

Please, someone confirm that Aragorn never makes a pot roast.

No, but Sam makes Frodo a rabbit stew (much to Smeagol's dismay). :smallamused:

[rgrekejin]

I've only read one George RR Martin book- a sci-fi one, Tuf Voyaging- but it did seem rather cynical.

Yeah... I read some of his short fiction before Game of Thrones was a thing. Sandkings and The Way of Cross and Dragon stick out foremost in my memory. Cynical is an apt description... although Sandkings, at least, was still pretty good. I remember when someone first told me about Game of Thrones that, based on my impressions from those stories, I was able to pretty accurately describe the tone and atmosphere of the book before I ever read it.

[bguy]

I keep hearing this and I keep wondering if people are reading the same books or if they've substituted the reputation of the books for the actual books in their minds. The grand total of 'most of the good characters' he's killed off, completely and obviously:

Ned and Robb.

Exactly. I've never understood how Martin got this reputation as a character killer. The death rate in ASOIF is actually pretty low compared to other fantasy stories. The Dragonlance novels for instance have a much higher mortality rate for their protagonists than ASOIF does to say nothing of the Harry Potter series (where Deathly Hallows in particular is a complete bloodbath.)

[Mammal]

I think it's Martin's tendency to kill of beloved characters that garnered him his current reputation. I know more than a few people who stopped reading because they reached a point where all their favorite characters were dead. Even though more characters probably died in Harry Potter than in aSoIaF, their deaths were more spaced out, or occurred during the final battle. Martin tends to kill in clusters, and tends to kill characters who seemed like the protagonists.

[mhsmith]

Exactly. I've never understood how Martin got this reputation as a character killer. The death rate in ASOIF is actually pretty low compared to other fantasy stories. The Dragonlance novels for instance have a much higher mortality rate for their protagonists than ASOIF does to say nothing of the Harry Potter series (where Deathly Hallows in particular is a complete bloodbath.)

Deathly Hallows isn't much of a bloodbath. Honestly, throughout the series the most important good guy characters who perish are Dumbledore (old advisor character, tends to be doomed in heroic fiction), Sirius Black (who's never really THAT important) and Snape (final book casualty: SOMEONE important needs to die in the last book and no Dobby doesn't count). You do see some secondary characters offed, but none of them are particularly important to the overall drama.

ASOIAF death rate is pretty high, especially among POV or other important characters. Through 2.5 books out of 7 or so, you had, among others:

Ned (book one main character)
Robb (decoy protaganist)
Robert (the king in book one)
Renly (presumed eventual civil war winner for a good chunk of book two)
Viserys (decoy antagonist of book one)
Drogo (another decoy book one antagonist)


And over the course of the next 2.5 books, you've got a crap-ton more characters who die or are CLEARLY on their way out (won't list here since some may just watch the TV show). Most of them are "bad guy" types, but GRRM is clearly not afraid to clear the field pretty regularly. And we're still nowhere near the actual climax of the series.

And, of course, another part of his rep is that most all of these deaths are unexpected / sudden. Few dramatic speeches, goodbyes as they're dying etc.

[Flame of Anor]

Might want to spoiler those Harry Potter deaths, mhsmith--the thread warning is only for the GRRM universe.

[IronFist]

Wouldn't call Drogo an antagonist.

[SN137]

I fundamentally disagree with this statement on every level.
Ah , fair enough . I can see where you're coming from . And I completely agree with you.

And honestly, at the point where the statement, "James Bond does not have courage because the story will never let him lose," becomes meaningful, so does the statement, "James Bond does not have courage because he is not a human being, he is a series of words written on sheets of paper bound together." Which is to say, at a point that is pretty ****ing meaningless for any discussion of fiction.
I disagree. The second is denying a basic premise of fiction, that it is fiction , whilst the first is just a hyperbole to express dislike at the lack of mortal danger the hero is in . The latter statement just means that fiction is bad because it is fiction, which is indeed not something you can actually have a discussion about fiction on , and hence could indeed be called meaningless to have a topic of discussion on.
"The dislike of heroes not being in mortal danger" , is not like the above one at all . If a hero is not in danger (well one kind of danger) , there is never any worry about will they die or not . Thus there is never any surprise about the outcome of whether they made it through the story alive or not . But if the heroes survival is a foregone conclusion then one is cutting yourself off from the possibility of their being a surprise . And I love surprises in fiction (and judging by spoiler tags existing, so do others :smallwink:) , because if I know where a story is going completely I find myself fairly uninterested . Indeed I like your story (among other reasons) because I have no idea where exactly it is going , I can't type out a synopsis of the plot on my own . (like for some writers I've gone through) Denying the chance of the characters denying is denying one more source of surprise , and because it is rarely subverted in the stories I read it can be all the more interesting and surprising for it .
Now I'm not saying that writers who don't do it are bad and won't read them , many of them are fairly good, and it is after all only one element to the story, I'm just saying that if I were to call a hypothetical story perfect it would include that element.

[SavageWombat]

Interesting thread.

Let's get meta then:

Suppose we find an unpublished Bond novel where Ian Fleming shows up in the text and tells Bond that he's going to die - there will be no more Bond books.

He explains that, without him to write Bond's adventures, his life is in the hands of fate - plot armor now gone.

Picture Bond, as you know him, in your mind - does he still continue being a secret agent? Knowing that he's not invulnerable?

(P.S. There's a reason why almost every superhero goes through a "I lost my powers" story or arc.)

[bguy]

Deathly Hallows isn't much of a bloodbath. Honestly, throughout the series the most important good guy characters who perish are Dumbledore (old advisor character, tends to be doomed in heroic fiction), Sirius Black (who's never really THAT important) and Snape (final book casualty: SOMEONE important needs to die in the last book and no Dobby doesn't count). You do see some secondary characters offed, but none of them are particularly important to the overall drama.

Most of Martin's deaths have also been secondary characters, and like you said most of the secondary characters he kills are bad guys. Rowling by contrast was a lot more willing to kill off good guy secondary characters. Deathly Hallows saw Mad-Eye Moody, Hedgwig, Dobby, Remus, Tonks, Fred Weasley, and probably others I've forgotten all get killed.



ASOIAF death rate is pretty high, especially among POV or other important characters. Through 2.5 books out of 7 or so, you had, among others:
[LIST]
Ned (book one main character)
Robb (decoy protaganist)
Robert (the king in book one)
Renly (presumed eventual civil war winner for a good chunk of book two)
Viserys (decoy antagonist of book one)
Drogo (another decoy book one antagonist)

Ned is really the only character on that list whose death was a surprise. Robb was never a POV character, and everyone else on it was pretty obviously marked to die. (Robert had to die to get the plot going, Renly had to die to keep the series from ending in Book 2, Viserys was an outright joke, etc...)

Look at it this way, not counting the prologue and epilogue chapters there have been 24 POV characters in ASOIF, so those are presumably the protagonists of the story. Of those 24
3 have died and stayed dead. (And 2 of those 3 were very minor characters.) Quentyn Martell and Arys Oakheart
1 has died and become undead.
1 has died but is almost certain to be revived.

Now lets compare that to the 24 characters in OOTS who have had the most appearances.
1 has died and been revived (Roy)
1 has died and become undead (Durkon)
5 have died/been destroyed and seem likely to stay dead. (Nale, Miko, Thog, Malack, Z).

So OOTS seems to be a much more lethal story for leading characters than ASOIF, and that's despite it having a much smaller cast, and it not being 5000 pages long.


And over the course of the next 2.5 books, you've got a crap-ton more characters who die or are CLEARLY on their way out (won't list here since some may just watch the TV show).

Fair enough, but since Martin hasn't killed those characters off yet, they shouldn't count towards his reputation. He may still unleash a blood bath in the next two books (if he ever finishes them), but he hasn't done it so far, at least not towards the good guys. (He has killed off a fair number of bad guy characters, but those types are pretty much fair game in any fictional series, so killing them doesn't really distinguish him from any other author.)

[SowZ]

Ah , fair enough . I can see where you're coming from . And I completely agree with you.

I disagree. The second is denying a basic premise of fiction, that it is fiction , whilst the first is just a hyperbole to express dislike at the lack of mortal danger the hero is in . The latter statement just means that fiction is bad because it is fiction, which is indeed not something you can actually have a discussion about fiction on , and hence could indeed be called meaningless to have a topic of discussion on.
"The dislike of heroes not being in mortal danger" , is not like the above one at all . If a hero is not in danger (well one kind of danger) , there is never any worry about will they die or not . Thus there is never any surprise about the outcome of whether they made it through the story alive or not . But if the heroes survival is a foregone conclusion then one is cutting yourself off from the possibility of their being a surprise . And I love surprises in fiction (and judging by spoiler tags existing, so do others :smallwink:) , because if I know where a story is going completely I find myself fairly uninterested . Indeed I like your story (among other reasons) because I have no idea where exactly it is going , I can't type out a synopsis of the plot on my own . (like for some writers I've gone through) Denying the chance of the characters denying is denying one more source of surprise , and because it is rarely subverted in the stories I read it can be all the more interesting and surprising for it .
Now I'm not saying that writers who don't do it are bad and won't read them , many of them are fairly good, and it is after all only one element to the story, I'm just saying that if I were to call a hypothetical story perfect it would include that element.

None of that changes the fact that all heroes are invincible until the author decides to kill them. If GRRM decides to kill Ned at the end of book one, nothing Ned could do up until that point would get him killed. Ned doesn't actually have a will of his own. aSoIaF is no different than any other fiction in that characters aren't actually in danger except for the one scene where the author decides to kill them. The only difference is for the reader.

In a book where the author kills lots of characters, the odds of any given scene being that one scene where the author kills off the character seems more likely to the reader. The difference is just in reader expectations. There is not a difference in regard to when a character is facing legitimate danger.

[SN137]

Picture Bond, as you know him, in your mind - does he still continue being a secret agent? Knowing that he's not invulnerable?

Hmmmm .... well Bond may have gotten a sense that things which shouldn't really work , will work most of the time . If he were to have that protection removed and were informed of its existence in the first place , whilst I don't see him giving up on being a secret agent , he had a first mission after all where he could have had more realistic expectations , he may well do things quite differently to what he did before (ignoring the possibility of him freaking out at being in a fictional story) .

None of that changes the fact that all heroes are invincible until the author decides to kill them. If GRRM decides to kill Ned at the end of book one, nothing Ned could do up until that point would get him killed. Ned doesn't actually have a will of his own. aSoIaF is no different than any other fiction in that characters aren't actually in danger except for the one scene where the author decides to kill them. The only difference is for the reader.

In a book where the author kills lots of characters, the odds of any given scene being that one scene where the author kills off the character seems more likely to the reader. The difference is just in reader expectations. There is not a difference in regard to when a character is facing legitimate danger.
Indeed you are completely correct , I can only be surprised once , and the characters are invincible for all the preceding points before their death. However what I thought I and Gygas were talking about in the first place is the effect that this has on the reader , and the lack of suspense it engenders in them in dangerous scenes .