A Song of Ice and Fire: The Master Course in Cynicism

[DomaDoma]

Well, I've taken to arguing about this one again.

For a four-year period, I was very much enamored of ASoIaF. The complexity of the world, the depth of the characters, the intricacy of the plots, the beauty of the style, the uncanny way it had of absolutely destroying me and leaving me begging for more. When I began reading A Feast For Crows, these aforementioned strong suits began looking (though I didn't allow myself to look it square-on) rather like a chipped veneer over something deeply rotten. And then, having bought A Dance With Dragons on its release day, I got perhaps a quarter of the way in before abruptly realizing: this guy is just screwing with us.

I've spent a lot of time since then mulling over what was so deeply wrong about those books, but I haven't actually read them since. Now, I will have to, and finish book five besides. The books are deeply, acerbically cynical. The moral they quite explicitly bear is this: The world is awful. Be awful yourself, and at least it won't hurt so badly. But apparently this is actually a point of contention, such that I must produce reams of quotes to substantiate it.

Well, mulling it over, there is so much material to go on when it comes to A Song Of Ice And Fire's hideous themes, we're going to be making it into a weekly blooming lecture. The first few, to give me time to get through the poisonous bricks, are the ones most easily cited off the top of my rusty head. From there, it'll be in what I consider the most dramatic order.




WEEKLY OUTLINE

Westerosi Maxims to Live By
Love and War
Mercy with a Vengeance
Death, Survival, and Ned Stark's One True Failing
Words are Farts: The Use of Loftiness and Vulgarity
You'd Think Joffrey's Death Would Have More of an Upside
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: the Danaerys Model
The Unscenic Route to Nowhere: the Brienne Model
How's Your Gang Rape Pregnancy Today, Unnecessary Minor Character?
A Nation of Kings and not of Laws
The One Peacemaker Limit
Be Littlefinger
Then Where Do the Songs Come From?



We'll start in earnest Monday.

[Knaight]

I've spent a lot of time since then mulling over what was so deeply wrong about those books, but I haven't actually read them since. Now, I will have to, and finish book five besides. The books are deeply, acerbically cynical. The moral they quite explicitly bear is this: The world is awful. Be awful yourself, and at least it won't hurt so badly. But apparently this is actually a point of contention, such that I must produce reams of quotes to substantiate it.

Firstly, this project sounds interesting and I'll be watching. I'm also one of the people that would at least partially contest that moral - at least inasmuch as it is meant to apply to the world as a whole. There's more than a little bit that I would categorize as "feudalism is an inherently destructive system; the very existence of a defined noble class is a societal threat; the whole concept of a "good king" is questionable at best and even if it wasn't look who can take power" and the like - particularly given the state of the genre in the early 1990's, when Game of Thrones was written (1994 publishing date or so).

[An Enemy Spy]

Oh dear lord, I've created a monster. Please regale us with how eeevil these books are. Should be hilarious.

I hope you at least bothered to read them all the way through this time before you begin your master course.

[Legato Endless]

*Yawn* Deeply cynical requires, well, shutting oneself off to vasty oceans of literature, classic and modern (not to mention actual history), but eh, we live in the world where people can't differentiate grim from dark anymore so...

I hope this helps get this out your system.

[Fri]

Firstly, this project sounds interesting and I'll be watching. I'm also one of the people that would at least partially contest that moral - at least inasmuch as it is meant to apply to the world as a whole. There's more than a little bit that I would categorize as "feudalism is an inherently destructive system; the very existence of a defined noble class is a societal threat; the whole concept of a "good king" is questionable at best and even if it wasn't look who can take power" and the like - particularly given the state of the genre in the early 1990's, when Game of Thrones was written (1994 publishing date or so).

That's the moral I got from ASoIaF as well. Despite what people led to believe, it's not actually that over the top grim or gritty. Sure it's not heroic fantasy, but it's not warhammer 40k as well. But if there's one thing it deconstruct is, the notion that individually good (whether moral or competence) king/leader can fix everything, that's prevalent in fantasy. "How do you stop a Bad Guy in noble title? A Good Guy in noble title," doesn't work here. Feudalism is a mess.

[An Enemy Spy]

Just for some context, this thread is spun out of a debate DomaDoma and I were having. His main thrust was that GRRM only writes two kinds of characters, villainous and foolish, and that he prefers the latter, and that the heroes only possible actions are to either become evil(which George is telling us we should all do), or sit around moping while the bad guys make endless speeches about grimdarkness and emo stuff, because the world is a horrible place and we should all be bad to each other.

I challenged him to back these claims up with actual text from the series(which he admitted he has not read up to the end of the latest novel) so the debate could have some actual substance to it instead of just his vague assertions.

[russdm]

I think the real moral is: There is no place for decency or morals or the law from anyone

Being a king means having to do immoral things from time to time. But in GoT, that is the only thing that can be done. There is no point to be a human being and not a monster in GoT. Given how it is, why not go around and slaughter everyone? It's the only thing to do.

GoT is not Warhammer 40k, which has reasons why everything is messed up. Horrifying aliens, warp dwelling monsters, and etc. demonstrate why things are the way they are. And Warhammer 40k sounds like it would be fun. GoT doesn't have that.

No one who acts decently in GoT gets anything out of it besides dying or suffering. Villains win for doing basically the only thing possible which is villainy. For a society that is supposed to care about honor, there is none to be found, and pretty much everyone is plotting to murder everyone else to take power. The last decent person? Eddard Stark and dies at the start!

There is nothing about GoT that would make you want to live there or imagine living there. There is no reason not to flee or abandon the kingdoms, to somewhere better like maybe Warhammer. Warhammer is a better place than this with all of the crazy. That says a lot.

There are no heroes or anti-heroes in GoT. Everyone is either a villain, or a lower class of villain.

This is not a treatise on Monarchy, because it doesn't actually appear. There are no kings, only warlords, and everyone trying to take the top spot. That is not how feudal monarchy works. Feudal Monarchy sees the King's position as coming from God/Pick Deity here and so no one below is really trying to take the crown. There is no game of thrones being played. It doesn't work like that.

GoT is best described as War Porn, Torture Porn, or Murder Porn. There is almost no signs of anything decent of redeeming or three-dimensional about any of the characters, nor would you find any reason why anyone would actually follow any of the rulers. Why is there even a king here? The story simply takes the worst aspects of people, removes anything good, and blows up the rest to fill everything in.

The more I read the books, the more I found I simply despised nearly all of the characters, and could root for few if any. The ones I rooted for most was the White Watchers, the monsters because they seem to the best thing to happen to this place. I am actually looking forward for the WW to killing everyone.

I found after reading that I didn't frankly give a D*** about anybody. I didn't about what happened to them, and I didn't care if the WW killed everyone because I couldn't find anyone to care enough about. I found reading stuff about Warhammer more care inducing.

It's a wonder how the world inside GoT even managed to work for as long as it did.



I challenged him to back these claims up with actual text from the series(which he admitted he has not read up to the end of the latest novel) so the debate could have some actual substance to it instead of just his vague assertions.

I think this goes both ways, with proof needing to be displayed from both sides. Or we just one side only.

[SaintRidley]

I'm just going to put a link to this in my let's read thread so I can come back to it. From what I have seen of the OP's opinion, I think I will find myself disagreeing quite often and quite strenuously.

[Fri]

It honestly depends on your standard of "getting evil to get a headway." Because I doubt that you can get far in the setting without murder or lying, which is definitely considered evil. But I have no doubt, 100%, that by the end of the series, "good" will prevail. Or "better" if not good, whatever. What's happening when evil seemingly get headway is typical tension in stories before the good guys win. But evil people definitely get punished because of their evilness, if not good people winning.

It's been a while since I read the book, so my memory is hazy. Feel free to correct me, honestly. Some random example I can think of from the top of my head.(which is debatable obviously) which at least I think will give "good" payoff in the future: The Frey getting destroyed by the loyal Manderly, Arya keeping his memory of his family to keep herself from being a complete mindless assassin initiate (which I'm sure will pay off in the future), the hound (presumably) getting his redemption, Tyrion that most likely is going to do something effective in the future, Bran's becoming a tree wizard, Sam getting his maester degree, Cersei getting punished because she's petty evil, Jaime actually becoming a good knight. That's currently what I can remember from the top of my head. Those might feel like drops of minor/insignificant small light in a sea of darkness, sure, but I have no doubt it will lead to something better.

Also, a major difference between ASoIaF and say, wh40k or edgy 90s comic book is, Martin doesn't present evil or grimness or darkness as cool or awesome. They're bad thing and we're supposed to root against the evil.

And you don't want to live in GoT universe. Because why would you? It's not a place made so you imagine you'd like visiting it. I don't want to live in warhammer or hunger games, or even lotr universe as well, honestly (for one, there's no internt).

[Murk]

Count me in for being interested in the master course, and count me in for someone who is firmly on the side of the OP. I have read all these books and will continue to read them, but I was struggling all along the way. Reading chapter after chapter of nasty, unpleasant, unsympathetic people (many of which die without actually achieving anything) just seemed like a lot of investing for very little pay-off.


It honestly depends on your standard of "getting evil to get a headway." Because I doubt that you can get far in the setting without murder or lying, which is definitely considered evil. But I have no doubt, 100%, that by the end of the series, "good" will prevail. Or "better" if not good, whatever. What's happening when evil seemingly get headway is typical tension in stories before the good guys win. But evil people definitely get punished because of their evilness, if not good people winning.

And this was my main problem with the series: almost everyone is evil. I have a hard time thinking of people who are sympathetic, alive, and good by choice. There are a few, probably, but they really get drowned in the enormous amount of characters who deserve bad things. One of those prevailing will not satisfy me at all, especially not after so long.
As someone else has said, maybe the white walkers winning would even be the most satisfying end, in some sort of messed-up demonstration of cosmic karma.

[Ramza00]

Feudalism is a mess.
That is it, 4 words that describe a 1000 other words and 30 ideas about George RR Martin and ASOIAF. Feudalism is a mess.

Wonder why eventually pretty much everyone abandoned it on a nation state level. Though you can make arguments feudalism is very much alive and well in corporations structures of various types.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I think I'll follow this, too. My starting position is that I disagree with the OP - ASoIaF is an intentional deconstruction and GRRM is a Romantic at heart. Generally, I find myself agreeing with Steven Attewell's analysis here (https://racefortheironthrone.wordpress.com/archive/cbc-analysis/), which provides infinitely more detail than I can in a forum post.

Though I do agree that AFFC and ADWD were significantly weaker books than the first couple, mainly due to GRRM tying himself in knots plot-wise. And the sort-of-gritty style lends itself to misinterpretation and misrepresentation by people like Benioff and Weiss, who have obviously coloured people's opinions of the story.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Chalk me up as someone who disagrees with you, and as someone who simply believes that the novels don't really have a moral at all. To me, they're just... novels.

Honestly, a lot of the reactions in this thread kind of confuse me. I know that a lot of people get very attached to certain characters, or want certain things to happen in the story. I've experienced people in other fandoms that have stopped reading and given up because their favourite character died, for example. That doesn't happen to me. I have favourite characters and favourite works, and I enjoy them a lot, but I never get that emotionally involved in specific characters. If a character dies, my opinion might be "I enjoyed reading about that character and their actions and opinions and so I'm a little disappointed", but I never get emotionally involved like other people seem too.

[factotum]

All characters are villainous or foolish? Have to disagree there. Cersei is both, for a start. :smallsmile: There are many characters who I would say are neither, though: Daenerys, both Princes of Dorne, Asha Greyjoy, the Stark children (with maybe the exception of Arya), Davos Seaworth, Stannis Baratheon (who is a hard man, but as fair as his society allows him to be), Renly Baratheon (what little we saw of him), Jon Snow...I'm sure I could continue the list, but those are the ones that spring immediately to mind. If anyone disagrees with any of these citations, please let me know why you think those characters are particularly villainous or foolish.

(I didn't include Brienne of Tarth in my list because I believe she *is* rather foolish, or at least cripplingly naive for someone who is an adult woman with dreams of being a knight).

[An Enemy Spy]

First of all, the level of rhetoric on this thread is through the stratosphere. Before even one quote from the books has been displayed, we're already supposed to take it on your word that these books are "poisonous bricks" and "War Porn, Torture Porn, Murder Porn". Frankly, the two of you are starting on such an incredibly hostile level, I'm wondering if there's even any point in talking to you, seeing as how you'll probably just answer any point I make with "No, you're wrong!"

Russdm, I question whether or not you've even read the books. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the books knows that the series is not called Game of Thrones, and that the White Walkers(not Watchers), are referred to as the Others. You don't even have to read past the prologue of the first book to know that. This is a discussion about the books, so if you want to be taken seriously, use the books' terminology. If I were to discuss The Hobbit novel with people who've read it and started going on about Legolas and Radaghast the Brown, nobody would put any stock in what I had to say.

Since DomaDoma has yet to actually say anything, I'll address Russdm, and yes, I will be quoting from the books(and not from the TV show).

"Being a king means having to do immoral things from time to time. But in GoT, that is the only thing that can be done. There is no point to be a human being and not a monster in GoT. Given how it is, why not go around and slaughter everyone? It's the only thing to do."

This is so easily countered by the books that I'll include a quote from Tywin Lannister, one of the principle villains of the series.


Tyrion VI, A Storm of Swords
"The river lords are no fools," the queen argued. Without the northmen they cannot stand against the combined power of Highgarden, Casterly Rock, and Dorne. Surely they will choose submission rather than destruction."

"Most." agreed Lord Tywin. "Riverrun remains, but so long as Walder Frey holds Edmure Tully hostage, the Blackfish dare not mount a threat. Jason Mallister and Tytos Blackwood will fight on for honor's sake, but the Freys can keep the Mallisters penned up at Seagard, and with the right inducement Jonos Bracken can be persuaded to change his allegiance and attack the Blackwoods. In the end they will bend the knee. I mean to offer generous terms. Any castle that yields to us will be spared, save one."

...

"They should all put to the sword," Joffrey declared suddenly. "The Mallisters and Blackwoods and Brackens... all of them. They're traitors. I want them killed, Grandfather. I won't have any generous terms."

...

"Be quiet, Cersei. Joffrey, when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you.

So here we have the red handed tyrant himself professing the virtues of mercy, because constant mindless slaughter is a terrible way to rule a kingdom. One of the reasons King Robert was so popular was that he showed mercy and friendship to anyone that bent the knee. Joffrey doesn't understand that because Joffrey is thirteen years old and an idiot. If you think George R. R. Martin is going to profess his beliefs through the mouth of Joffrey Baratheon, then there's just no point in talking to you.

So that was a purely pragmatic reason why slaughtering everyone isn't a good idea. Lest you think that only GRRM's villains think this way, let's go to Book 5 and read a quote from a "lower class of villain", Jon Snow(Though you're going to have to explain to me what's so villainous about him. I'm ashamed to confess that after four read-throughs of these books I still haven't picked up on it.)


Jon VIII, A Dance with Dragons
Bowen Marsh did not appear surprised. "You mean to let him pass." His voice suggested that he had known all along. "To open the gates for him and his followers. Hundreds, thousands."

"If he has that many left."

Septon Cellador made the sign of the star. Othell Yarwick grunted. Bowen Marsh said, "Some will call this treason.These are wildlings. Savages, raiders, rapers, more beast than man."

"Tormund is none of these things," said Jon, "no more than Mance Rayder. But even if every word you said was true, they are still men, Bowen. Living men, human as you and me. Winter is coming, my lords, and when it does, we living men will need to stand together against the dead."

...

Septon Cellador pursed his lips. "Salvation can be found only through the Seven. This witch has doomed them all."

"And saved the Wall, mayhaps," said Bowen Marsh. "These are enemies we speak of. Let them pray amongst the ruins, and if their gods send ships to carry them off to a better world, well and good. In this world I have no food to feed them."

Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand. "Cotter Pyke's galleys sail past Hardhome from time to time. He tells me there is no shelter there but the caves. The screaming caves, his men call them. Mother Mole and those who followed her will perish there, of cold and starvation. Hundreds of them. Thousands."

"Thousands of enemies. Thousands of wildlings."

Thousands of people, Jon thought, Men, women, children. Anger rose inside of him, but when he spoke his voice was quiet and cold. "Are you so blind, or is it that you do not wish to see? What do you think will happen when these enemies are dead?"

Above the door the raven muttered, "Dead, dead, dead."

"Let me tell you what will happen," Jon said. "The dead will rise again, in their hundreds and their thousands. They will rise as wights, with black hands and pale blue eyes, and they will come for us." He pushed himself to his feet, the fingers of his sword hand opening and closing. "You have my leave to go."

Pragmatic and moral there, Jon is. One doesn't automatically cancel out the other in this series.

"The last decent person? Eddard Stark and dies at the start!"

Jon Snow, Davos Seaworth, Barristan Selmy, Daenerys Targaryen, Brienne of Tarth, Quentyn Martell, Catelyn Stark, Sansa Stark, Brandon Stark, and Samwell Tarly all say hi. And that's just the POV characters that are pretty much wholly good. Then you have characters like Tyrion and Arya who are a little bit more on the grey side but still not bad people, characters that start off bad but start to find their better sides through suffering like Jaime and Tyrion. And to name all the non POV characters that fit the mold would require me to write a list so long it would take me all night.

"This is not a treatise on Monarchy, because it doesn't actually appear. There are no kings, only warlords, and everyone trying to take the top spot. That is not how feudal monarchy works. Feudal Monarchy sees the King's position as coming from God/Pick Deity here and so no one below is really trying to take the crown. There is no game of thrones being played. It doesn't work like that."

Wrong. Horribly, utterly wrong. Not even one sentence in this paragraph is correct. The Seven Kingdoms is divided into nine sections(Seven Kingdoms is an artifact title from the days before Aegon's Conquest). At the top is the king on the Iron Throne. Along with being a secular title, the king is also ordained by the Seven(the dominant religion in Westeros). In A Feast for Crows, one of the hurdles to solidifying power that Cersei is facing is that the New High Septon has not anointed King Tommen, because without the blessing of the gods, his legitamacy in the eys of the realm is lessened. This is also a large theme in Stannis' storyline. The fact that he has chosen the god R'hlorr over the Seven is a big reason some lords will not swear their allegiance to him. Without the backing of the Seven, he's seen as a false king. Below the king are the Lords Paramount, the Starks, Tullys, Lannisters, Greyjoys, Arryns, Tyrells, Baratheons, and Martells, lording over the North, the Riverlands, the Westerlands, the Iron Islands, the Vale, the Reach, the Stormlands, and Dorne respectively. Houses Stark, Lannister, Arryn, and Martell were kings before Aegon the Conquerer came(or princes in the case of the Martells, but in practice it was essentially the same thing). The Tullys, Greyjoys, Tyrells, and Baratheons were raised up by Aegon after he had brought them into his realm. Under the Lords Paramount are their bannermen, who in turn have their own bannermen, and so on. It is a structured system of differing levels of authority. You answer to the lord you are sworn to, who answers to the lord he is sworn to, who answers to the king he is sworn to. That's a feudal system. The fight for the Iron Throne is not a free for all of warlords all trying to become king. There are three claimants to the Iron Throne after Robert's death: Joffrey Baratheon, Stannis Baratheon, and Renly Baratheon(you'll notice they are all members of the ruling house). Joffrey's claim is that he is the son of Robert. Stannis' claim is that Joffrey is not of Robert's blood and therefore not in line for the throne. Renly's claim is that he's more popular than Stannis and has the biggest army. Not the best of claims, admittedly, but hey, that's why there's such a thing as civil war.

So those are the only three people who are trying to gain the Iron Throne. Robb Stark and Balon Greyjoy are not seeking rulership over all of Westeros, but independence from the Baratheon regime. The Starks' reasoning is that they swore fealty to House Targaryen under the threat of dragonfire. Now that the dragons are all gone, there's no reason to stay loyal to the Iron Throne, especially since it was the Lannisters who initiated hostilities. The Iron Islands' reasoning for independence is a sort of ultra-nationalistic cultural revanchism to the supposed glory days when ironborn kings ruled over the Riverlands. Balon Greyjoy is using the War of Five Kings as an opportunity to return to the Old Way by going after the North. He is of course doomed to fail, because the ironborn are too few in number to hold the mainland, and they've long ago burned away any goodwill that any other Houses may have had for them, leaving them without any allies. Just one of many reasons that villainy doesn't pay off in the long run in ASoIaF. Also of note regarding the religious authority of the crown, neither the North nor the Iron Islands adhere to the Faith of the Seven, just another example of how the king's power derives from the gods.

And if you actually think that nobody ever disputed the crown in actual feudal Europe, I mean, that's wrong. That's just so wrong. Heck, the war depicted in the books is a direct parelell to the real life War of the Roses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses) fought between the Yorks and Lancasters. I mean, the names Stark and Lannister are direct references to the two Houses.

[An Enemy Spy]

And to address the notion that evil always wins in this series, well there's still two more books to go. There wouldn't be a whole lot of tension if the heroes had already come out on top 70% of the way through. Keep in mind that ASoIaF is one long continuous story, not a series of shorter stories that combine together to form a larger narrative arc like say, Harry Potter. The good guys haven't won yet because we haven't yet reached the climax.

[Murk]

Honestly, a lot of the reactions in this thread kind of confuse me. I know that a lot of people get very attached to certain characters, or want certain things to happen in the story.
[...]
If a character dies, my opinion might be "I enjoyed reading about that character and their actions and opinions and so I'm a little disappointed", but I never get emotionally involved like other people seem too.

Though I mainly agree with this, I need some kind of emotional involvement. If I'm going to spend quite a few hours reading about people, I need to at least be interested in what is happening to them. ASoIaF makes that very hard for me. That's personal preference, of course, but it can't hurt to explain my personal preference.
There are two things that make it very hard for me to care about the characters here.

The first one is, as has been said, that most of the characters are just very unpleasant people (to me). I've come to understand that I'm very demanding to call characters pleasant, but I would never call Tyrion or Daenerys "good guys". Sure, they're by far not as bad as other characters, but in most stories these would be complex villains. They have valid reasons and are realistically written, but they still go around invading kingdoms, slaughtering people and destabilising nations. I just find it hard to wish anything else than punishment on them.
There are pleasant characters (Samwell is alright, Sansa is just foolish, Davos, eh, has potential), but they are in the vast minority to me.

The second one is that a lot of characters walking around in the series don't actually achieve anything. There are plenty of characters that we follow for lots of chapters that die or disappear without actually being of consequence to the story. I don't mind characters dying, I don't even mind characters not being significant - but then don't let me spend hours reading about them. (For example, Eddard, whose only contribution to the story is the act of dying itself, or Quentyn, who, well, was an entertaining read, I guess?). Once again: I don't mind the way their story unfolded, I do mind that we had to see several chapters from their perspectives.

As I said, these are my personal grievances. I don't blame anyone for liking this, but we're here to explain opinions, aren't we? :smallsmile:

[Knaight]

This is not a treatise on Monarchy, because it doesn't actually appear. There are no kings, only warlords, and everyone trying to take the top spot. That is not how feudal monarchy works. Feudal Monarchy sees the King's position as coming from God/Pick Deity here and so no one below is really trying to take the crown. There is no game of thrones being played. It doesn't work like that.

Oh yeah, the whole concept of noble power struggles is totally a fantasy invention. There's no historical basis for that whatsoever, and that's why monarchies are known to be so incredibly stable all the time, particularly those with a broad feudal structure. Things like dynastic changes from violent takeovers are totally unheard of, the divine right of kings was both always assumed to hold and always attached to the current ruler and never claimed to be lost or moved in the wake of bad leadership, conflict over things like who the actual heir was is similarly unheard of, etc. Then we get into the matter of how even the "good" nobles are demonstrably getting huge numbers of the common people killed in their squabbles, but that criticism couldn't possibly have analogs to real feudal systems. There's also consistently a nice and clean distinction between a king and a warlord at all times. For. Sure.

[An Enemy Spy]

Though I mainly agree with this, I need some kind of emotional involvement. If I'm going to spend quite a few hours reading about people, I need to at least be interested in what is happening to them. ASoIaF makes that very hard for me. That's personal preference, of course, but it can't hurt to explain my personal preference.
There are two things that make it very hard for me to care about the characters here.

The first one is, as has been said, that most of the characters are just very unpleasant people (to me). I've come to understand that I'm very demanding to call characters pleasant, but I would never call Tyrion or Daenerys "good guys". Sure, they're by far not as bad as other characters, but in most stories these would be complex villains. They have valid reasons and are realistically written, but they still go around invading kingdoms, slaughtering people and destabilising nations. I just find it hard to wish anything else than punishment on them.
There are pleasant characters (Samwell is alright, Sansa is just foolish, Davos, eh, has potential), but they are in the vast minority to me.

The second one is that a lot of characters walking around in the series don't actually achieve anything. There are plenty of characters that we follow for lots of chapters that die or disappear without actually being of consequence to the story. I don't mind characters dying, I don't even mind characters not being significant - but then don't let me spend hours reading about them. (For example, Eddard, whose only contribution to the story is the act of dying itself, or Quentyn, who, well, was an entertaining read, I guess?). Once again: I don't mind the way their story unfolded, I do mind that we had to see several chapters from their perspectives.

As I said, these are my personal grievances. I don't blame anyone for liking this, but we're here to explain opinions, aren't we? :smallsmile:

I have no problem with anyone disliking the series. It is pretty dark and gruesome, after all. I just have a problem with people calling it evil or poisonous or whatever, when it's just a series of books that aren't harming anyone or anything. Reminds me of the people who want to burn Harry Potter for teaching kids witchcraft. I also object to the heavy implication that writing a dark story somehow makes George a bad person.

I'm not here to change opinions, just to challenge untruths.

[Fri]

I have no problem with anyone disliking the series. It is pretty dark and gruesome, after all. I just have a problem with people calling it evil or poisonous or whatever, when it's just a series of books that aren't harming anyone or anything. Reminds me of the people who want to burn Harry Potter for teaching kids witchcraft. I also object to the heavy implication that writing a dark story somehow makes George a bad person.

I'm not here to change opinions, just to challenge untruths.

Yep, especially since George obviously have evil as villains, you can't really say that he try to glorify them. Unlike say, the Domination of Draka (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Domination)series (which is way less obvious so the author keep trying to explain that writing about dystopian society doesn't mean he's agreeing with the society. Though from reading the series it's really understandable why people need that to be explained.)

[factotum]

but I would never call Tyrion or Daenerys "good guys". Sure, they're by far not as bad as other characters, but in most stories these would be complex villains. They have valid reasons and are realistically written, but they still go around invading kingdoms, slaughtering people and destabilising nations. I just find it hard to wish anything else than punishment on them.

I would agree that Tyrion is pretty much a villain, although there's a chance he could be redeemed in the two books to come. Daenerys, though? The only kingdoms she's invaded are a bunch of slavers--she freed all the slaves in those nations as part of her invasion. The fact this has not turned out so well is down to naivety on her behalf (along with a smattering of treachery among her advisers), not malicious intent; it's easy to forget that she's not even sixteen years old and would be a child by our definitions.

[Murk]

I would agree that Tyrion is pretty much a villain, although there's a chance he could be redeemed in the two books to come. Daenerys, though? The only kingdoms she's invaded are a bunch of slavers--she freed all the slaves in those nations as part of her invasion. The fact this has not turned out so well is down to naivety on her behalf (along with a smattering of treachery among her advisers), not malicious intent; it's easy to forget that she's not even sixteen years old and would be a child by our definitions.

She didn't really show much hesitation about letting loose a few thousand Dothraki on a continent, plunging it into a very bloody war just to get the throne, for example.
You are right of course, she is just a kid, she's being pressured from all sides, she's raised in a different culture than I am. So maybe "villain" isn't a good word here, since she doesn't even realise starting wars is a bad thing.
Alright, I'll cave. She's probably more of an antagonist-like not-really-evil-but-does-unpleasant-things protagonist. Not a villain.

I still don't want to see her succeed, though, and it often looks like the narrative expects me to root for her (or other people in similar situations).

[Ninja_Prawn]

Daenerys, though?

So, when she glides in on the back of a black dragon at the head of a horde of screamers, shouting "FIRE AND BLOOD!"... we're supposed to cheer? Even if she is The Last Hero, her situation is far from black and white.

[An Enemy Spy]

So, when she glides in on the back of a black dragon at the head of a horde of screamers, shouting "FIRE AND BLOOD!"... we're supposed to cheer? Even if she is The Last Hero, her situation is far from black and white.

Welcome to A Song of Ice and Fire. People who see the world in shades of black and white tend not to be the heroes.

[Gnoman]

I'd like to reiterate a couple of points I've made elsewhere.

First, Eddard Stark didn't die because of "idiotic honor". He died because he found out what was going on too late in the game. Sure, trying to protect Cersei and her children from Robert's wrath wasn't the brightest of moves, but it had no effect, and could have had no effect whatsoever. Cersei's plans were already in motion, and the outcome was entirely in the hands of chance. The only truly stupid thing that Eddard did was attempt to contest the succession, as it would have been better to just tell Stannis everything and let him do it. That is a decision that can only be criticized in hindsight.

Second, Robb was winning handily until he committed a dishonorable act by breaking his marriage pact with the Freys, which resulted in the Red Wedding. Had Robb acted more honorably, the war would probably have been over by the time the real enemy started to show up, and the Northern bulwark of civilization would be intact. The entire Greyjoy plot would still have gotten started, but it might not have gone so badly for the Starks.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Robb was winning handily until he committed a dishonorable act by breaking his marriage pact with the Freys

For the record, I agree with you about Ned, but not Robb. The Red Wedding Plot was already well in motion before the storming of the Crag, given how advanced it was when we first hear the news of Robb's wound. I contend that Robb's 'dishonourable' breaking of the pact did not cause his downfall in either a literal or spiritual sense, it was merely a convenient post-hoc justification.

[warty goblin]

That's the moral I got from ASoIaF as well. Despite what people led to believe, it's not actually that over the top grim or gritty. Sure it's not heroic fantasy, but it's not warhammer 40k as well. But if there's one thing it deconstruct is, the notion that individually good (whether moral or competence) king/leader can fix everything, that's prevalent in fantasy. "How do you stop a Bad Guy in noble title? A Good Guy in noble title," doesn't work here. Feudalism is a mess.

Frankly, for Martin it's downright cheerful. The moral of the story isn't that the self is hell, but you're such a coward you can't let go of it for heaven (A Song for Lya, or all your dreams will fail, you have no worth, so might as well pass the time having sex with reanimated corpses (Meathouse Man), a story so goddamn horrifying I feel like bathing in bleach every time I read it. A Song of Ice and Fire is, in a lot of ways very similar to Dying of the Light. The symbolism of the coming of winter, the habit of the world of taking a character's ideals and chewing them up in complete indifference, and the substantial importance of a brutally honest man with half his face burned off come to mind. The important distinction however is that in Westeros the winter is long, but Worlorn's coming winter is literally eternal. There is no spring, we're all falling into endless darkness and cold, any meaning we find on the way is purely an accident of the universe and likely to fail before the end.

Yeah, A Song of Ice and Fire is Martin in happy mode. It's bad, but there's a real potential for it to get slowly, painfully, better.

[factotum]

So, when she glides in on the back of a black dragon at the head of a horde of screamers, shouting "FIRE AND BLOOD!"... we're supposed to cheer?

Can you point out to me when that actually happens in the books, because I certainly don't remember it?

[brionl]

Evil, shmeevil. I'm disliking the series because I don't think he'll be able to actually finish it any time before he dies. He keeps writing more and more words with less story shooting off in all directions ending up delaying and bloating the books into multiple volumes.

[Murk]

Evil, shmeevil. I'm disliking the series because I don't think he'll be able to actually finish it any time before he dies. He keeps writing more and more words with less story shooting off in all directions ending up delaying and bloating the books into multiple volumes.

I spot an opinion-paradox!
A book series not being finished is only bad if you like the books.
If you start to dislike the books because the series won't get finished, you won't like the books anymore, so it won't be bad that the series doesn't get finished, so you don't dislike the series anymore, so it is bad that the series doesn't get finished, so you dislike the series, so it won't be bad that the series doesn't get finished, so you don't dislike the series anymore, so it is bad that the series doesn't get finished, so you dislike the series........

Paradoxes are fun.

[Adderbane]

Evil, shmeevil. I'm disliking the series because I don't think he'll be able to actually finish it any time before he dies. He keeps writing more and more words with less story shooting off in all directions ending up delaying and bloating the books into multiple volumes.

Robert Jordan proved this is no obstacle...

[Aedilred]

Can you point out to me when that actually happens in the books, because I certainly don't remember it?
Obviously it hasn't happened yet. But it's been Daenerys's objective in one way or another pretty much since the outset, and it's what the books are pointing us towards expecting to happen at some point.


For the record, I agree with you about Ned, but not Robb. The Red Wedding Plot was already well in motion before the storming of the Crag, given how advanced it was when we first hear the news of Robb's wound. I contend that Robb's 'dishonourable' breaking of the pact did not cause his downfall in either a literal or spiritual sense, it was merely a convenient post-hoc justification.

Was it that advanced? During the storming of the Crag the Freys were still among Robb's vanguard, and it was only after the wedding that they deserted him. I'm not going to say that Walder Frey wasn't already planning a contingency backstab, but it seems much less likely that the minor Freys like Black Walder who actually arranged the Red Wedding were in on it or would even have cooperated with it at that point. Before Blackwater and the loss of Winterfell, too, Robb was in the ascendancy, and it was only really after that point that the war became unwinnable to the point where backstabbing him would have looked like a good idea, and although the timeline is a bit wobbly, I don't think news reached the Twins or Robb that either of those had happened until after the Crag was taken.

In any case breaking off the marriage pact with Walder wasn't so much a dishonourable mistake as an honourable one, because the reason for it was that Robb had slept with Jeyne and the honourable thing to do was to marry her. Sleeping with her in the first place was perhaps not particularly honourable, but, well, they're teenagers, and at that point the dishonourable thing would have been to walk away. If I remember rightly it's remarked by someone (Cat?) that it's very Ned-like behaviour, and Ned is one of the series' paragons of honour. Robb was planning to make it up to Walder (and the deal Walder would have got from that was, in fact, arguably rather better than the one he thought he was getting when he agreed to the deal in the first place), but he failed to account for Walder's thin skin and opportunism.


Evil, shmeevil. I'm disliking the series because I don't think he'll be able to actually finish it any time before he dies. He keeps writing more and more words with less story shooting off in all directions ending up delaying and bloating the books into multiple volumes.

I feel like this is highly pessimistic and one of those things that fans fret over without much justification. It's not like he's in his 80s, and while he's clearly not going to be running any marathons any time soon I'm not aware that he actually has any known health problems; there's no real reason to suppose that he hasn't got plenty of juice left in him. And from what I gather the next book - and possibly the last one - are largely written, but in draft form and still require a fair amount of editing and revising. It could be argued that the last two books suffered from a failure of editing, so I'm not going to lose much sleep over time being spent editing the last two.


Robert Jordan proved this is no obstacle...
Again, I'm going off vague memory here, but, GRRM's feelings about people speculating on his death (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/game-of-thrones-author-george-rr-martin-says-f-you-to-fans-who-fear-he-will-die-before-finishing-9596265.html) aside, I believe he's said he doesn't want the books to be finished by someone else if he for whatever reason doesn't finish them.

[Mith]

My perspective on the series is that what satisfaction I get out of the story, I get out of historical fiction. I finished the first book, and found myself not invested enough to pick up the second book.

If the series wasn't as massive in the detail it covers, it probably would have clicked for me.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Was it that advanced?

I don't want to derail the thread on this point, but I was under the impression that there were some oblique references to secret communications between Tywin and Roose in ACOK and early ASOS. For example, Tyrion witnesses Tywin writing what appear to be the final 'plan RW is a-go' letters at exactly the same time that Catelyn receives news from the Crag (before anyone knows about the marriage). And yes, to some extent Tywin has a faster line to the Crag than Catelyn does, but he, Roose and Walder must have been forming the plans prior to that point. Note that Bolton has already sent Robett Glover and Helman Tallhart to Duskendale by then, which he wouldn't have done if he wasn't committed to the RW plan.

[An Enemy Spy]

I had a big long description of all the factors that led to Robb's downfall but my computer crashed and I don't feel like rewriting. The short version is: Roose was betraying Robb from day one, losing battles on purpose and setting up his political rivals to be killed or captured. The Freys were colluding with him before word of Robb's marriage to Jeyne Westerling came to them. Robb's campaign in the west was undone by Edmure Tully who went well beyond the scope of his orders trying to make up for his defeat to Jaime Lannister, allowing Tywin to turn back and join with the Tyrells instead of being trapped in the Westerlands. Winterfell itself was sacked by a Bolton host, and the way back into the north was blocked by Victarion Greyjoy at Moat Cailin. Also, Jeyne's mother Sybel was one of the conspirators of the Red Wedding. She most likely took advantage of Robb's physically and emotionally weakened state(Robb was recovering from his arrow wound he learned that his brothers had been murdered) to get Jeyne into bed with him, giving the Freys the excuse they needed to betray Robb and align themselves with Tywin's new military hegemony. Add in the failure to bring either Renly or Stannis to his side, and the Lannister/Tyrell victory on the Blackwater, and Robb is now in big trouble, made even worse by losing Jaime as a captive and the Karstark betrayal.

Robb is the victim of a treacherous bannerman, a glory hogging uncle, an ironborn invasion(that would have happened whether or not he sent Theon to treat with Balon), supernatural assassinations, an unbeatable army to the south and and an implacable fortress to the north, his mother's rash actions, the loss of his home base, Rickard Karstark's murderous rampage, and his foolish decision to marry into a House that brought nothing of value to the cause.

There's no one factor that got Robb killed, but rather a whole series of unfortunate events, most of which he had no part in.

[factotum]

an ironborn invasion(that would have happened whether or not he sent Theon to treat with Balon)

The Ironborn would never have struck at Winterfell, and probably not Torrhen's Square either, without Theon around, though--they're both too far from the sea to be worth their while holding. Without that, and the apparent murder of his younger brothers, Robb might well have not felt the need to come north, and it was on his way north that the opportunity for the Red Wedding arose. Even with that, though, I don't consider him sending Theon to treat with the Iron Islands to be a mistake. In any other situation sending a lord's son to negotiate with him would be an inspired move, it just doesn't work for Balon Greyjoy because he considers Theon to have been lost long ago.

[Legato Endless]

I spot an opinion-paradox!
A book series not being finished is only bad if you like the books.
If you start to dislike the books because the series won't get finished, you won't like the books anymore, so it won't be bad that the series doesn't get finished........[/SIZE]

Paradoxes are fun.

That's not a paradox though even if human beings weren't capable of holding contradictory desires. You love X. X disappoints you and ultimately fails to live up to expectations. You begin to resent X. But your resentment of X doesn't nullify your emotional investment in X. That's textbook psychology. There's pretty broad intersection between like and dislike. To say nothing of liking some aspects of something while hating other parts of it.


I feel like this is highly pessimistic and one of those things that fans fret over without much justification. It's not like he's in his 80s, and while he's clearly not going to be running any marathons any time soon I'm not aware that he actually has any known health problems; there's no real reason to suppose that he hasn't got plenty of juice left in him. And from what I gather the next book - and possibly the last one - are largely written, but in draft form and still require a fair amount of editing and revising. It could be argued that the last two books suffered from a failure of editing, so I'm not going to lose much sleep over time being spent editing the last two.

I think the notion that doesn't involve a sudden untimely event though isn't completely absurd. Martin is getting older and that entails something of a slowdown, and his writing style (of never working outside of home but being a traveling celebrity) dampens progress further. The man could plausibly live till he's 85 and not necessarily finish the series. Especially considering the scope of the series has only expanded from a trilogy to a pentalogy to there being no guarantee this caps at seven.

[An Enemy Spy]

The Ironborn would never have struck at Winterfell, and probably not Torrhen's Square either, without Theon around, though--they're both too far from the sea to be worth their while holding. Without that, and the apparent murder of his younger brothers, Robb might well have not felt the need to come north, and it was on his way north that the opportunity for the Red Wedding arose. Even with that, though, I don't consider him sending Theon to treat with the Iron Islands to be a mistake. In any other situation sending a lord's son to negotiate with him would be an inspired move, it just doesn't work for Balon Greyjoy because he considers Theon to have been lost long ago.

They probably wouldn't have struck at Winterfell, but they'd still hold Moat Cailin, which tactically speaking is the better prize, as it has better access to the sea and seals off the Neck to Robb's army.

[S@tanicoaldo]

I recommend this video:


https://youtu.be/ek2O6bVAIQQ

It's kind of long but it summarizes my feelings on the series and why people don't get the main idea and themes of it.

A song of ice and fire is not about death and despair, it's about life and hope.

[Traab]

Im pretty sure that every time there is a discussion on this topic, its required by law to post this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAAp_luluo0) link. If anyone hasnt seen that yet, enjoy. :p

[S@tanicoaldo]

Im pretty sure that every time there is a discussion on this topic, its required by law to post this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAAp_luluo0) link. If anyone hasnt seen that yet, enjoy. :p

I... I'm sorry but that video kind of sucked.

They are not enemies, in the end they have a very similar theme, George rr martin don't kill his characters randomly, each and every charatcer who has died did soemthing stupid and earned their death they deserve it.

I hate this Vs. mentality, why can't I like both AMrvel and Dc? This is not football where I have to choose.

[Dienekes]

All characters are villainous or foolish? Have to disagree there. Cersei is both, for a start. :smallsmile: There are many characters who I would say are neither, though: Daenerys,

We read about the same Daenerys? Daenerys "Everywhere-I-Go-I-Make-Demonstrably-Worse" Targaryen?

The one who believes she should sit on a throne because she happened to be born from a half-mad rapist? The one that unleashed a horde of raging barbarians on undefended lamb-people villages and then is all surprised when one of them tries to get there, actually quite reasonable revenge? The one who has left a path of destroyed cities and wrecked economies in her wake? Who utterly failed at dealing with the intrigues of Meereen, because she just had to jump some random mercenary's bone?

She's caused the deaths of more people than Gregor Bloody Clegane, has started several wars, and even after hearing some pretty sound advice by Mormont and Barristan hinting that, you know, the common people really don't care all that much about who sits on the chair. Really, they just want to be left alone. Her grand master plan is still to bring an army of lunatics, soldiers, and dragons across the sea and set the place on fire.

If I'm feeling charitable, far too charitable, I could say she's not -intentionally- villainous. But she is a complete fool. It's actually pretty interesting, we've basically been watching a Genghis Khan expy murdering her way across the land, but a sizable portion of the reading base still root for her.

[Liquor Box]

Given the general high quality of your posts, Doma, I would be interested in your Masterclass.

My starting point is disagreement though. I think what you call cynicism is better labelled realism. After all, you can find several real life examples of places and times where there were repeated wars (with the requisite betrayal and rapes etc).

I wonder if we have been conditioned by the norm in fantasy (and most storytelling) that goodness is always unambiguously better than evil and always triumphs over evil, to think that this should always be the case. There is a place for this sort of “goodness always prevails” storytelling, but I think there is also a place for storytelling like GoT/SoFaI, where it not always clear that the goodies will win. I think it is still likely that good will prevail (the sympathetic Danaryus and John Snow are probably the two favourites to be on the throne at the end), but I wouldn’t regard it as a bad ending if a less sympathetic character took the throne, or if one of the two of them performed some irrevocably evil act to gain it.

I also like the fact that many characters are not clearly sympathetic, or unsympathetic. In some TV, the show goes out of its way to demonstrate that where a sympathetic character does a bad thing, it is because of their circumstances, or that they later learn their lesson and repent. In GoT/SoFaI many characters that appear sympathetic do bad things, and vice versa. I think that this is more in line with the way people act in real life – most people are not good or evil, they are somewhere in between and will do the right thing in some circumstances but not in others.

[Traab]

I... I'm sorry but that video kind of sucked.

They are not enemies, in the end they have a very similar theme, George rr martin don't kill his characters randomly, each and every charatcer who has died did soemthing stupid and earned their death they deserve it.

I hate this Vs. mentality, why can't I like both AMrvel and Dc? This is not football where I have to choose.

I looked at it as a satire. They didnt just bring out the tired old comments about each others work, they also brought out all sorts of random facts a lot arent aware of like tolkiens military service, martins work on beauty and the beast (I honestly didnt know that about him) Which is what I like most about those rap battles, virtually every sentence has extra meaning and is connected either to the rappers work or the targets.

[russdm]

Russdm, I question whether or not you've even read the books.


I have read all five, all of the "A song of Ice and Fire". My referring to me as GoT is simply copying what plenty of others have done when referring to the novels and Show combined. I have read each book cover to cover.



Jon Snow


Well, Let's See:

Isn't he dead as off the end of A Dance with Dragons? Killed by his fellow members of the Watch for doing the pragmatic thing of emptying lands north of the wall of people so the Others can't turn them into zombies?




Davos Seaworth


Hmm: Doesn't he work for Stannis, and is in no real position to affect the main plot?



Barristan Selmy


Did you Forget that once we see his POV that he spends his time directing working against his own boss guy? Who he threatens while trying to do what he thinks is right.



Daenerys Targaryen


Ahh, little miss Currently with her dragons while the rest of the plot happens without her, and every action that she has taken to try to regain her throne has been a complete mistake that has only made things worse for her in the end. Also, haven given her little benefit before going wrong.



Brienne of Tarth


Is currently [spoiler] the captive of Miss Undead, with no signs that she is still alive or will be alive



Quentyn Martell


Became Dragon Chow, and his entire plan relied on using a magic artifact to enslave the dragons then force Dany to marry him which he wishes to do ought of love for her. Not sure how his plan would be considered a good one.



Catelyn Stark


Is Miss Undeath, and is busy killing Freys as such. Died believing that she had straightened matters with House Frey before they killed her.



Sansa Stark


She was made to suffer by Joff, then later carried off by Littlefinger who took her on as an apprentice, then is currently wandering North?. I last recall her learning how to be sneaky and deceitful from Littlefinger. But in no position to affect the main plot



Brandon Stark


Sir Tree wizard in training where he can't affect the main plot in any fashion.



Samwell Tarly


Went to learn to be a Maestro or steward for Jon. Despite this, he is still no able to affect the main plot


Of those you mention, most or nearly all are in no position to affect the main plot, which is what I recall, a major point regarding "good guys", that they can change how the main plot goes or ends. So if they can't affect the main plot, can you call them the "good guys" as opposed to calling them simply "good-aligned/acting characters"?



And if you actually think that nobody ever disputed the crown in actual feudal Europe, I mean, that's wrong. That's just so wrong. Heck, the war depicted in the books is a direct parelell to the real life War of the Roses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses) fought between the Yorks and Lancasters. I mean, the names Stark and Lannister are direct references to the two Houses.


Disputing who is in charge, is not the same as challenging the existence of the crown. Are any of the characters seeking to replace the king with a democracy? Or replace the king with communism? There are plenty of instances in recorded history of disputes of who holds the crown, but few of people challenging that someone should be king. Having Monarchy or Feudalism means someone is recognized as going to hold the crown, not that the crown itself should not exist.

The Starks are trying to replace the Iron Throne king with their own one. That's not the same as saying "Lancaster Person X should be king" but is saying "Lancaster person X will only be king over this land that belongs to Lancasters". Can you see the difference? I am not sure you can.



The good guys haven't won yet because we haven't yet reached the climax.


Supposing that the books actually get finished that is. If they don't, then there is no chance it will happen, and who is to say that anyone remotely considered a "good guy" is still capable of affecting matters these days?

Regarding Monarchy: Well yes it is terrible, but it is the system that was used and worked mostly for the entire time it was around, and many Monarchies became constitutional monarchies. Look at Democracy, it doesn't always work well. No political system works that well with humans anyway.

People have done both good and terrible things, and yeah some monarchs were monsters, but does that mean that there should have been no system at all? What about democracy in Athens? or In Rome? Democracy in Athens was only available for a few, and in Rome, it was usually in the hands of a few as well.

Besides, hasn't A song of Ice and Fire been described as an "Epic Fantasy"? Aren't Good guys and villains an accepted part of Epic Fantasy?

How much length in words and pages is given to scenes of War, Torture, Rape, murder, and other darker actions? How much length appears for other activities? Besides Political machinations?

If A song of ice and Fire is going to treat it's character like real life, then more villainous characters should screw up more or fail more often, and more good type characters should be able to influence events. Because that is real life. But that doesn't ever happen.

Given how much you have read the books, then maybe you can tell everyone what the Moral is, and use book quotes is explain it. You seem to be in a good position to do so.

[Dienekes]

Jon Snow

Isn't he dead as off the end of A Dance with Dragons? Killed by his fellow members of the Watch for doing the pragmatic thing of emptying lands north of the wall of people so the Others can't turn them into zombies?


Uhh, let's just say "maybe" on this one.


Davos Seaworth

Hmm: Doesn't he work for Stannis, and is in no real position to affect the main plot?


Wonder how you made that leap, since a bunch of characters working for Stannis can affect the main plot, Stannis and Melisandre the most.

He's also off looking for Rickon in territory known for their magic knowledge. So, I'd think he has a bit of a chance of revealing some fairly important stuff.


Barristan Selmy


Did you Forget that once we see his POV that he spends his time directing working against his own boss guy? Who he threatens while trying to do what he thinks is right.


The guy that was blatantly obviously working against his actual boss lady? He also ends up being right about that one.


Dany


Ahh, little miss Currently with her dragons while the rest of the plot happens without her, and every action that she has taken to try to regain her throne has been a complete mistake that has only made things worse for her in the end. Also, haven given her little benefit before going wrong.

No argument here, Dany's terrible.

Brienne


Is currently the captive of Miss Undead, with no signs that she is still alive or will be alive


Nope, she survived that encounter and may be leading Jaime Lannister into a trap. Maybe planning to try and save Pod.

Speaking of, Podrick Payne, best damn guy in the series.

Quentyn


Became Dragon Chow, and his entire plan relied on using a magic artifact to enslave the dragons then force Dany to marry him which he wishes to do ought of love for her. Not sure how his plan would be considered a good one.



There are actually quite a few hints he's still alive. Not sure if they end up being true, of course.

Cat


Is Miss Undeath, and is busy killing Freys as such. Died believing that she had straightened matters with House Frey before they killed her.


Yeah, she's a fallen hero. Easily.

Sansa

She was made to suffer by Joff, then later carried off by Littlefinger who took her on as an apprentice, then is currently wandering North?. I last recall her learning how to be sneaky and deceitful from Littlefinger. But in no position to affect the main plot

How does suffering stop making a character good? Also, she's not wandering the north and she's getting into a position to lead the Vale maybe with Littlefinger, maybe without.


Brandon


Sir Tree wizard in training where he can't affect the main plot in any fashion.

He IS the main plot... Admittedly, a main plot that is taking far too damn long to get moving.


Sam

Went to learn to be a Maestro or steward for Jon. Despite this, he is still no able to affect the main plot

Right, because going to the center of all knowledge to find a means of defeating the main antagonists in a tower were magic is starting to come alive again, with a damn Faceless Man certainly means he won't contribute to the main plot, at all.

[russdm]

Sansa

How does suffering stop making a character good? Also, she's not wandering the north and she's getting into a position to lead the Vale maybe with Littlefinger, maybe without.



I have never considered her to be good really. That was claimed by someone else.



Sam

Right, because going to the center of all knowledge to find a means of defeating the main antagonists in a tower were magic is starting to come alive again, with a damn Faceless Man certainly means he won't contribute to the main plot, at all.



I think I am seriously confusing what the Story's main plot is. Isn't who gets the Iron Throne, the main plot? I thought the Others were essentially the Borg, and unstoppable. The main plot is not the war for the crown and who sits it, and with Cersei pisses off everyone else thoroughly?

Hasn't HBO billed the story as "Game of Thrones" since that is what the story is about? The war for the Throne? I can't recall the issues with the Others being treated as anything but filler material in the novels except for either Bran's or Jon's POVs. Out of sight, out of mind, and all that.

Seriously, I thought the main plot was the political games, the sex, the battles, and the sex, the political games. Didn't realize that the Others were supposed to be the main plot. You wouldn't tell from reading the book considering how little action relating to the Others that happens.

[An Enemy Spy]

How is it that you've read all five books yet lack even a basic understanding of what's going on? The Starks aren't trying to replace the king on the Iron Throne, they're trying to declare independence and rule the North as a seperate kingdom. Barristan is going against Hizdhar because he thinks he tried to poison Danaerys. Jon may be technically dead right now but he's obviously going to be coming back to life. Quentyn only might be dead. Davos is 100% responsible for Stannis coming to save the Wall and is now on a quest to find Rickon Stark. Sansa is wandering the North? She's in the Vale! My god, a simple google search could have told you all these things, but you don't even bother to do the slightest bit of fact checking before you run your mouth.

You have such an obsessive hatred for this series, yet you can't even get simple facts right about it. Or about real history, based on your comments about feudalism.
i just can't get over the fact that you didn't know there were such things as succession wars in the Middle Ages! How Why don't you take the smallest effort to make sure that things you're saying are factually correct before you crapping on a popular series? That's just basic courtesy.

"Disputing who is in charge, is not the same as challenging the existence of the crown. Are any of the characters seeking to replace the king with a democracy? Or replace the king with communism? There are plenty of instances in recorded history of disputes of who holds the crown, but few of people challenging that someone should be king. Having Monarchy or Feudalism means someone is recognized as going to hold the crown, not that the crown itself should not exist."

And as for this, nobody involved in the war is "challenging the existence of the crown." From what place you pulled that notion out of I have no idea, but I wager it doesn't smell very nice. So far, I'm the only one who has actually quoted the books to back up my claims. Why don't you do the same? Show me where in the book anyone claims that this war is about challenging the crown's existence. Cause I think you can't do it.

[Dienekes]

I have never considered her to be good really. That was claimed by someone else.



I think I am seriously confusing what the Story's main plot is. Isn't who gets the Iron Throne, the main plot? I thought the Others were essentially the Borg, and unstoppable. The main plot is not the war for the crown and who sits it, and with Cersei pisses off everyone else thoroughly?

Hasn't HBO billed the story as "Game of Thrones" since that is what the story is about? The war for the Throne? I can't recall the issues with the Others being treated as anything but filler material in the novels except for either Bran's or Jon's POVs. Out of sight, out of mind, and all that.

Seriously, I thought the main plot was the political games, the sex, the battles, and the sex, the political games. Didn't realize that the Others were supposed to be the main plot. You wouldn't tell from reading the book considering how little action relating to the Others that happens.

HBO, for however much I enjoy the series, basically took away all the subtext and meaning in the series and shoved it into a deep dark corner to focus on tits, violence, intrigue, and making the setting even darker.


Last season really clinched it. In the books, the North is on the verge on pulling one of the biggest most well set up conspiracies I've ever read. Where it spits in the eye on the most despicable villains and actively rebukes the idea that "honor is stupid" that so many people think the series is trying to say. The whole North is uniting to destroy Frey and Bolton together in remembrance of the honor of Ned and Robb.

In the show, the North does jack all, and one of the leaders of the conspiracy, House Umber, are represented by a spiteful backstabbing ****.

The books also make a rather large point that, yes, the throne is nice and people will do anything to have it. But, advisers tell Stannis, and Dany, and Robb, and protagonists think it themselves (Cat being one of the most frequent at this) that ultimately it's an uncomfortable chair, and the power of leadership is just another person imprisoned by their circumstances in various ways. And ultimately is unimportant next to the literal personification of GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

The Others and what they represent is so blatant that it's shocking to me that people don't immediately get the symbolism. Honestly, I thought it was so head smackingly obvious that the first time I was introduced to the series I consciously decided not to read it because I figured it would be a boring moralizing tract.

[Legato Endless]

I
Disputing who is in charge, is not the same as challenging the existence of the crown. Are any of the characters seeking to replace the king with a democracy? Or replace the king with communism? There are plenty of instances in recorded history of disputes of who holds the crown, but few of people challenging that someone should be king. Having Monarchy or Feudalism means someone is recognized as going to hold the crown, not that the crown itself should not exist.

Hmmmm? Wars of Kingship aren't just succession crises. When a sovereign is replaced or some other moment of perceived weakness occurs in a dynasty, independence and separatist movements are a regular occurrence in history. Which is exactly what happens in the books. The King dies and a bunch of more independent less culturally similar people's declare a return to times when they ruled themselves.

The existence of Feudalism in no eliminated uprisings from peoples within a ruler's territory arguing that he had no business being their king. The divine right of King's was never a panacea for quelling these sentiments by any implicit acceptance. If anything, the death of Feudalism is ironically much more accurate to your claims, as once Kings gained professional armies revolt became a much dicier and more fraught proposition.



Seriously, I thought the main plot was the political games, the sex, the battles, and the sex, the political games. Didn't realize that the Others were supposed to be the main plot. You wouldn't tell from reading the book considering how little action relating to the Others that happens.

To take a different tack, There isn't one main plot. There's two. One of which starts off preeminent and another that's introduced early and slowly creeps into significance. I'll allow that the rate at which the second is taking is definitely slower than I'd like.

[Knaight]

HBO, for however much I enjoy the series, basically took away all the subtext and meaning in the series and shoved it into a deep dark corner to focus on tits, violence, intrigue, and making the setting even darker.

I'm not sure I'd give it credit for focusing on intrigue. It's one more thing that largely fell by the wayside to put yet more focus on sex and violence. The show is basically a master class in wasting the talents of the original writer, the set and costume people, the camera crew, the sound crew, numerous talented actors, and a lot of budget on a shallow imitation of a book series that completely misses the point.

[Corvus]

If I'm feeling charitable, far too charitable, I could say she's not -intentionally- villainous. But she is a complete fool. It's actually pretty interesting, we've basically been watching a Genghis Khan expy murdering her way across the land, but a sizable portion of the reading base still root for her.

Genghis Khan wasn't a hot platinum blonde who kept providing fanservice for the viewers :)

[Shadow of the Sun]

On Quentyn:
Are we all talking about the same character? And does "still alive" mean anything when he is literally described as having 'pools of pus' for eyes due to third degree burns?

[Fri]

And you're not even mentioning Doran Martel. What the freakin **** did the show turned him into. I didn't watch the later seasons, so I didn't know about what they did, but when I read series/episode synopsis I was just... what?

Anyway the very first scene is about the ice demons. The premise of the series is obvious that the realm should gather to fight the real threat, the ice demons, instead of bickering among themselves. So the plot is about people maneuvering to be king while they should be fighting the ice demons instead, and clued people trying to rally the people against the ice demons/figure out how to defeat them. It's a standard fantasy plot really. "There's real demonic threat up north but people are bickering amongst themselves."

Also, people dispute divine rule to kingship and ascertain their right to it all the time. Just look at the long list of chinese dynasty. Whenever a new dynasty kicked the old dynasty's ass out of emperorship, the new dynasty always say "the divines had judged that the old dynasty had failed and the right had passed to us now. We're god's appointed king for this land now." And despite that, there's like, so many times in history where china is separated into so many smaller kingdoms. After Qin decided that whole china is imperial china, there's still time in chinese history marked as "3 kingdom era," "16 kingdoms era, "5 dynasty and 10 kingdom era" etc.

[Dienekes]

On Quentyn:
Are we all talking about the same character? And does "still alive" mean anything when he is literally described as having 'pools of pus' for eyes due to third degree burns?


Yep, that Quentyn. It's nowhere near 100% confirmed that he's alive, it's just a theory.

There's more to it, but the gist of the theory is based on the fact that the corpse is so disfigured that Barristan says it doesn't even look like Quentyn at all, and he has to take the word of Quentyn's two minions on who it is. And those two minions are acting very shifty, like they're lying.

I'm not doing the theorist's credit as there's more to it than that, but honestly, the theory was possible, but sketchy. Whether Martin proceeds forward with Quentyn dead or alive, would both fit.

[An Enemy Spy]

Toppling a regime built around the industrialized suffering of millions isn't evil. Dany's mistake was that she declared war on the Masters' way of life, and then stopped partway through and tried to play nice instead of finishing the job. She should have done to Yunkai what she did to Astapor, only left the new regimes she'd set up with enough military force to actually maintain their rule so that people like Cleon the Butcher couldn't take control. Had she done this, she would currently be Queen of three mostly stable cities instead of one dangerously unstable city under siege from the same people she'd already beaten in the field.

Steven Attewell has a lot more to say on the subject which I can't get into here because it involves talking about the real life politics of the Confederate States of America and the Reconstruction period.
http://towerofthehand.com/blog/2015/02/01-laboratory-of-politics-part-vi/

[An Enemy Spy]

On Quentyn:
Are we all talking about the same character? And does "still alive" mean anything when he is literally described as having 'pools of pus' for eyes due to third degree burns?

The thing is, we don't know for a fact that the guy in the bed is Quentyn. We just know that Barristan thinks he is Quentyn. It would hardly be the first time George has played with our expectations.

[Dienekes]

Toppling a regime built around the industrialized suffering of millions isn't evil. Dany's mistake was that she declared war on the Masters' way of life, and then stopped partway through and tried to play nice instead of finishing the job. She should have done to Yunkai what she did to Astapor, only left the new regimes she'd set up with enough military force to actually maintain their rule so that people like Cleon the Butcher couldn't take control. Had she done this, she would currently be Queen of three mostly stable cities instead of one dangerously unstable city under siege from the same people she'd already beaten in the field.

Steven Attewell has a lot more to say on the subject which I can't get into here because it involves talking about the real life politics of the Confederate States of America and the Reconstruction period.
http://towerofthehand.com/blog/2015/02/01-laboratory-of-politics-part-vi/

She destroyed the entire economic function of the cities she conquered and offered absolutely no replacement. Even if in Astapor she left the new leadership with a military, she had just successfully destroyed their biggest economic output.

Is that evil? Not unless you go into further context on how she performs her actions.

Will that absolutely destroy the city, good and bad in a few years? Oh, absolutely.

If you suddenly just told the Romans "Oh no, no slaves anymore, deal with your latifundia some other way." You would have toppled the entire empire, or forced them to go on an even more rigorous military conquest and looting spree to pay for the dramatic economic shift.

[An Enemy Spy]

She destroyed the entire economic function of the cities she conquered and offered absolutely no replacement. Even if in Astapor she left the new leadership with a military, she had just successfully destroyed their biggest economic output.

Is that evil? Not unless you go into further context on how she performs her actions.

Will that absolutely destroy the city, good and bad in a few years? Oh, absolutely.

If you suddenly just told the Romans "Oh no, no slaves anymore, deal with your latifundia some other way." You would have toppled the entire empire, or forced them to go on an even more rigorous military conquest and looting spree to pay for the dramatic economic shift.

Obviously. I'm not arguing that Dany went about it the right way, I just don't think freeing millions of people from captivity is an evil action. Dany fails on a pragmatic level, not a moral one.

[factotum]

We read about the same Daenerys? Daenerys "Everywhere-I-Go-I-Make-Demonstrably-Worse" Targaryen?

The one who believes she should sit on a throne because she happened to be born from a half-mad rapist? The one that unleashed a horde of raging barbarians on undefended lamb-people villages and then is all surprised when one of them tries to get there, actually quite reasonable revenge? The one who has left a path of destroyed cities and wrecked economies in her wake? Who utterly failed at dealing with the intrigues of Meereen, because she just had to jump some random mercenary's bone?


These points in order:

1) Yes, she makes things worse. This is not from malicious intent, though, and largely down to her own naivety, as I mentioned before.

2) Everyone who believes they should sit the Iron Throne is basing it on heredity, and who they're descended from shouldn't make a difference. Stannis' claim comes from the fact his brother successfully rebelled against said half-mad rapist. Aegon's claim is the same as Dany's, only stronger due to him being in the male line of succession, yet you don't seem to be holding him up as an example of a horrid person.

3) She didn't unleash barbarians on the lamb people, her husband Khal Drogo did that, and if you seriously believe he did that at her instigation, or that she had any power whatsoever to *stop* him doing that, then I have this bridge you might be interested in purchasing. In addition, she genuinely tried to help the people she saw being abused as she rode through the city.

4) As Enemy Spy points out, the main issue she had with the slaver cities was destroying the slave trade without having any clear plan for what to replace it with. Her having sex with Daario was irrelevant, because she married Hizdahr *anyway* in an attempt to get peace--the fact he then tried to poison her is hardly something that can be laid at her door.

So, overall, Dany is a naive teenager who tries to do the right thing and makes mistakes doing it. That doesn't make her evil *or* foolish.

[Murk]

So, overall, Dany is a naive teenager who tries to do the right thing and makes mistakes doing it. That doesn't make her evil *or* foolish.

If "the right thing" is "invading a country on the other side of the world because you want to rule it" - no matter how honestly you think it is the right thing - that gives you evil points, in my book.
Is that a modern, pacifistic mindset that probably doesn't occur to someone who was born in the setting? Probably. But I'm not arguing that the people in the books feel it is an evil thing to do (they clearly don't), just that I as a reader do not want to see said invasion succeed (because I as the reader have a modern pacifistic mindset).

[factotum]

If "the right thing" is "invading a country on the other side of the world because you want to rule it" - no matter how honestly you think it is the right thing - that gives you evil points, in my book.

She's been told since she was a child that the Iron Throne is rightfully hers, and that when she lands on Westeros every lord and commoner will rally to her banner. Kind of hard to lose that mindset when it's been drummed into you so long, I'd say. Leaving that aside, presumably you also believe the Baratheons to be evil? After all, they were only on the throne in the first place because Robert launched a successful rebellion against the Mad King's rule.

[Ninja_Prawn]

presumably you also believe the Baratheons to be evil?

Well, wasn't Jon Arryn the main architect of that rebellion? But I think what Murk and I are arguing for is that most of the main characters are somewhere in the neutral part of the spectrum. To be honest I'm not even sure what we're arguing about... it's only tangentially related to the thread's topic and we probably agree on most of the points.

The issue seems to be that, somewhere along the line, someone insisted on categorising every character as either a 'hero' or a 'villain'. Most characters in ASoIaF are neither.

[2D8HP]

Im pretty sure that every time there is a discussion on this topic, its required by law to post this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAAp_luluo0) link. If anyone hasnt seen that yet, enjoy. :p

:biggrin:

Just wonderous
!
:cool:

[Shadow of the Sun]

I think that the important thing to remember about Daenerys is simply that she is 16.

In other words, she's an idiot. It's not her fault. But she has no real idea about politics or the experience necessary to actually administrate. In that she's a lot like Robb Stark or Robert Baratheon or even Cersei: very good at achieving power or winning battles or manipulating but honestly pretty terrible at actually doing anything once they've achieved that power or won those battles - the skillsets needed to achieve power and to actually use it effectively don't actually overlap that much.

Incidentally, I don't think Ned's problem was specifically that he was too honourable - rather it's that he didn't take appropriate precautions due to his expectations. A letter sent to Robb and Catelyn back in Winterfell that read "STANNIS IS THE LEGITIMATE HEIR TO THE IRON THRONE; IF I DIE PLEASE DECLARE FOR HIM RATHER THAN DECIDING TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE" the whole problem would have been much easier to deal with.

The notion that evil goes unpunished within the series is also difficult to maintain. At least three characters are evil or at least insane to a degree that public relations have become difficult and that they are seen as a liability even for their own side. For one of them, they were promptly murdered to make things easier. For another the enemies to their faction are pushing to keep them in power because the damage that they can do to their own side is greater than anything anyone else could be doing. And the last is admittedly still at large.

[GloatingSwine]

It's worth noting that the "evil" of characters in ASoIaF pales in comparison to the historical atrocities of the real world period that inspired it.

The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries saw events like the Black Dinner, individuals like Vlad the Impaler, Ivan the Terrible, Tamerlane, the Borgia papacy, and the discovery of a brand new continent and push to legalise slavery again in order to best exploit it. The actions of even the most extreme rulers like the Boltons in ASoIaF wouldn't even get a footnote in history compared to some of real life's top bastards from the era.

[russdm]

The issue seems to be that, somewhere along the line, someone insisted on categorising every character as either a 'hero' or a 'villain'. Most characters in ASoIaF are neither.

If this is true, then why does "A Song of Ice and Fire" get billed as "Epic Fantasy"? or as being "Fantasy of an Epic sort"? Wouldn't "Low Fantasy" or "Realistic Fantasy" be better applied to it?

Doesn't "Epic Fantasy" have certain tropes associated with it, and characters divided into "Hero" or "Villain" groups are one of these key tropes? Doesn't that immediately suggest a basic perception of how the story is supposed to be?

Wouldn't it be easier to just call "A Song of Ice and Fire" what it is, a story of "Low Fantasy" because the characters are more realistic than what should be present in "Epic Fantasy"? Or referred to as "Sword and Sorcery"? Since it better fits that Genre?

If "Epic Fantasy" must be used, then shouldn't the fact that everything is de-constructed been mentioned first in describing it? If not, then isn't that a false description?

In Epic Fantasy, it is a trope that the people are divided between Good and Evil, with few neutral groups and little cross-over, and very much in using the extremes. In less epic kinds of fantasy, the characters are not divided in such limited groups, and most if not all characters are more realistic, falling into the neutral area. There are also completely different tropes associated, like a group of races that fit as all good aligned, and a group of races that are all really evil. The main plots are about stopping the villain from ending the world or something similar, but there is almost no other real main plots. Doesn't ASoIaF have two main plots, one of which appears early, but only progresses whenever Jon Snow or his fellow close compatriots are on the scene?

Which is it? Because I can't see it fitting as being Epic Fantasy or High Fantasy. If it happens to be Low Fantasy, then the place makes way more sense to me. If it is High Fantasy/Epic Fantasy, there is no sense to be had.

I think of LoTR, Wheel of Time, D&D FR/DL, as High Fantasy / Epic Fantasy. They fit the tropes for Epic Fantasy/High Fantasy after all.

[Legato Endless]

It's worth noting that the "evil" of characters in ASoIaF pales in comparison to the historical atrocities of the real world period that inspired it.


*mashes nonexistent like button*

Now granted, that doesn't mean one can't dislike or critique portrayals of atrocities in fiction like this. But Asoiaf is not some grotesque hyperbole of the Middle Ages. It's light and frothy compared to the excesses of history.


The issue seems to be that, somewhere along the line, someone insisted on categorising every character as either a 'hero' or a 'villain'. Most characters in ASoIaF are neither.

This is accurate. The former because people are tribal and prone both to rationalizing and othering. Audiences are well inclined to undue sympathy and glorification/vilification of figures in real life fiction.


If this is true, then why does "A Song of Ice and Fire" get billed as "Epic Fantasy"? or as being "Fantasy of an Epic sort"? Wouldn't "Low Fantasy" or "Realistic Fantasy" be better applied to it?

Because advertisers are here to sell you things, not accurately portray what a work is. Genres are shorthand marketing tools.

[Ruslan]

And then, having bought A Dance With Dragons on its release day, I got perhaps a quarter of the way in before abruptly realizing: this guy is just screwing with us.
My favorite chapter in ADWD was when a bunch of guys (Quentin Martell and him men, I think) try to get a boat passage from X to Y. They go around town, ask people, meet with sailors and captains, but just can't get a boat. 20 pages later, they decide, "screw it, let's go by land". End of chapter.

This chapter is my favorite, because that's the exact point I realized with 100% certainty that, yes, GRRM is a troll, and stopped reading forever.

[warty goblin]

Epic basically just means long, and is often associated with stories of war, fighting, soldiers, etc. A Song of Ice and Fire certainly fulfills these requirements.

Now war stories often have sharply demarcated good guys and bad guys, with all the good guys lined up on one side of the field, and all the bad guys on the other, but it isn't necessary. Homer certainly doesn't read this way; sure the Trojans are the instigators of the whole damn thing, and sure Paris is a useless turd, but plenty of the Trojans and their allies are even by the standards of the text entirely praiseworthy. Hektor is - depending on your view - either the most humanized character in the text, or slyly undercut and made to appear soft and weak, but Sarpedon, Glaucas, Deiphobos, Aeneas etc are all exemplary individuals in their time and setting. Agamemnon is a fighter of only moderate worth, a miserable leader and the worst public speaker in the entire text, which is a substantial failing for a hero. Thersites is simply detestable. Although he only appears in the broader Epic Cycle, Achilles' son Neoptolemus is so insanely violent* that even in classical times people found his character deeply unsettling. Sure the text has good and bad guys, and even an overarching right and wrong side, but it's not like the good and bad are well sorted.

Fantasy has a history of having its heroes and villains pretty well sorted, often because the villains want to do things like summon dark gods to eat the world or something like that. From what I've read of multi-book fantasy from the mid nineties when A Game of Thrones came out, the sorting was both very strong and often nearly solipsistic; the good guys were good because the story was from their perspective, the bad guys were bad because the good guys were fighting them. Terry Goodkind is the obvious reference here, but he's hardly alone. Sarah Douglass' Warfarer Redemption series was pretty much 2,000** pages of good guys doing damn near every horrible thing the bad guys did, but like all heroically. This culminated in the 'hero' ripping the heart out of one of the designated villains as a sacrifice to the god of death, because that guy's family was apparently evil at a literally genetic level. This was obviously not uniform across all of fantasy at the time, but there was a substantial trend in this direction.


The fact that A Song of Ice and Fire makes antagonist not symmetric with (utter) evil and protagonist not equivalent to (pure) good was, at the time, a legitimately and substantially unusual move. This is not undercut by the text having people who are entirely and utterly loathsome, any more than Paris undercuts the genuine heroics - by the standards of the time - of Sarpedon. And a lot of the concepts driving A Song of Ice and Fire are pretty usual for fantasy; squabbling nobles, bad kings, rebellions, resurgent magic. I have no trouble calling A Song of Ice and Fire epic fantasy, since it fits well within the traditions of epics, it's clearly fantasy, and plays with a lot of the same ideas as other undeniably epic fantasies. It just does different things with those ideas.

Lastly, it's hardly the case that subgenres are particularly well defined things, and I can't see any reason or utility in pretending they are. Really, epic fantasy seems to me to be more of a marketing phrase than anything meaningful.



*In one telling, he kills Hektor's son and father by beating the latter to death with the former. The guy makes Gregor Clegane look easy-going and well adjusted.

**For the first trilogy. I never touched the second. Another 2,000 pages of Axis being unbearably smug would have made me start biting things

[Dienekes]

My favorite chapter in ADWD was when a bunch of guys (Quentin Martell and him men, I think) try to get a boat passage from X to Y. They go around town, ask people, meet with sailors and captains, but just can't get a boat. 20 pages later, they decide, "screw it, let's go by land". End of chapter.

This chapter is my favorite, because that's the exact point I realized with 100% certainty that, yes, GRRM is a troll, and stopped reading forever.

The really funny thing is, I know that chapter. And if you read who they're asking, the reasons they're giving, and then track the wars through the territory, they chapter is hinting at a rather abrupt change of power across the Free Cities that Dany hasn't directly ruined. Probably caused as a response of what Dany did to the ones she has. And a copious amount of hints that Varys and Illyrio is directly involved in each of the cities.

I'm honestly not sure if it was somewhat genius or the worst thing I've read.

[Ninja_Prawn]

If this is true, then why does "A Song of Ice and Fire" get billed as "Epic Fantasy"? or as being "Fantasy of an Epic sort"? Wouldn't "Low Fantasy" or "Realistic Fantasy" be better applied to it?

You have a point here. Lazy journalists and advertisers are misusing the term 'epic fantasy' when they apply it to ASoIaF. They seem to believe it just means really long. As in, getting to the end of it is an epic feat, because that's the world we live in now. I would definitely characterise the Planetos setting as 'low fantasy'.

[Legato Endless]

You have a point here. Lazy journalists and advertisers are misusing the term 'epic fantasy' when they apply it to ASoIaF. They seem to believe it just means really long. As in, getting to the end of it is an epic feat, because that's the world we live in now. I would definitely characterise the Planetos setting as 'low fantasy'.

Except the advertisers are right. If they sell something as X, and people buy it as X, and the majority walk away happy, nothing was misused. To imply otherwise it to embrace an ossified view of language no linguist would back.

Genres aren't a system of rigorous scientific classification, and claiming otherwise makes for a dizzying array of concessions to a messier reality. They're a school of thought borne from the Greek's platonic desire to cleanly classify everything. The fact that genres get compacted and strung out by shifting public mores should alone be the death of any semantic argument . The only time 'Epic' had a concrete nonnegotiable meaning was when it refereed to oral poetry. The term is quite unmoored now.


Lastly, it's hardly the case that subgenres are particularly well defined things, and I can't see any reason or utility in pretending they are. Really, epic fantasy seems to me to be more of a marketing phrase than anything meaningful.

This guy gets it.

[russdm]

Because advertisers are here to sell you things, not accurately portray what a work is. Genres are shorthand marketing tools.

Then why have them and use them?


Epic basically just means long, and is often associated with stories of war, fighting, soldiers, etc. A Song of Ice and Fire certainly fulfills these requirements.

Lastly, it's hardly the case that subgenres are particularly well defined things, and I can't see any reason or utility in pretending they are. Really, epic fantasy seems to me to be more of a marketing phrase than anything else.

Then why not call all movies featuring a car in it, an "Epic" car movie?


You have a point here. Lazy journalists and advertisers are misusing the term 'epic fantasy' when they apply it to ASoIaF. They seem to believe it just means really long. As in, getting to the end of it is an epic feat, because that's the world we live in now. I would definitely characterise the Planetos setting as 'low fantasy'.

Agreed.


Except the advertisers are right. If they sell something as X, and people buy it as X, and the majority walk away happy, nothing was misused. To imply otherwise it to embrace an ossified view of language no linguist would back.

Genres aren't a system of rigorous scientific classification, and claiming otherwise makes for a dizzying array of concessions to a messier reality. They're a school of thought borne from the Greek's platonic desire to cleanly classify everything. The fact that genres get compacted and strung out by shifting public mores should alone be the death of any semantic argument . The only time 'Epic' had a concrete nonnegotiable meaning was when it refereed to oral poetry. The term is quite unmoored now.


So why then are we bothering to use the established Genres instead of just tossing them out the window? They have to mean something if we are going to keep using them, and putting stories into them by identification.

I mean: Star Trek is Science Fiction, Star Wars is Space Opera. You couldn't or usually wouldn't flip them and put Trek in Space Opera, with Star Wars in Science Fiction. So, clearly the Genres have to have some defining traits or why use them?

We talk about the Science Fiction Genre, the Fantasy Genre, the Sports Genre, the Girl-based (Not sure exactly what is being spaced out here) Genre, the Superhero Genre in various discussions on this forum and across the internet. If Genres are not meant to be used that way, doesn't all of them turn simply into a shorthand that has no meaning, so you wouldn't be wrong in calling Spiderman a fantasy genre story?

Wouldn't this mean that anything can be in the Superhero Genre, even those football playing games? That Tomb Raider (Originals or Reboot) can be in the Fantasy Genre or the Science Fiction Genre?

I thought that Genres were established as possessing certain traits/tropes, that could only fit into that space, and that stories were placed in those Genres, because they had those particular traits/tropes. If Not: Why can't I refer to every story featuring Doctor Doom as a Fantasy story henceforth? and call Lord of the Rings a Superhero trilogy?

[warty goblin]

Then why have them and use them?

Because they can be useful short descriptors, and so we can be better marketed to. Epic fantasy is a perfectly sound descriptor of a fantasy that is long, and probably concerned with war, since those are both well understood meanings and associations of the word 'epic.'


So why then are we bothering to use the established Genres instead of just tossing them out the window? They have to mean something if we are going to keep using them, and putting stories into them by identification.

I mean: Star Trek is Science Fiction, Star Wars is Space Opera. You couldn't or usually wouldn't flip them and put Trek in Space Opera, with Star Wars in Science Fiction. So, clearly the Genres have to have some defining traits or why use them?

There's a lot of what I'd consider space opera in Star Trek, and a lot of people would happily consider Star Wars science fiction. Other people would say it's space fantasy. I think all of those are valid, because all those terms describe things about the franchises.


We talk about the Science Fiction Genre, the Fantasy Genre, the Sports Genre, the Girl-based (Not sure exactly what is being spaced out here) Genre, the Superhero Genre in various discussions on this forum and across the internet. If Genres are not meant to be used that way, doesn't all of them turn simply into a shorthand that has no meaning, so you wouldn't be wrong in calling Spiderman a fantasy genre story?

Wouldn't this mean that anything can be in the Superhero Genre, even those football playing games? That Tomb Raider (Originals or Reboot) can be in the Fantasy Genre or the Science Fiction Genre?

I thought that Genres were established as possessing certain traits/tropes, that could only fit into that space, and that stories were placed in those Genres, because they had those particular traits/tropes. If Not: Why can't I refer to every story featuring Doctor Doom as a Fantasy story henceforth? and call Lord of the Rings a Superhero trilogy?

Established by whom? It's not like we can look at their fossil record and DNA, reconstruct the philogenetic tree, and determine that the last common ancestor of X and Y is Z, or this is actually a cross between a P and a Q. The genres are at best descriptive, not definitional, and certainly aren't precise or mutually exclusive. Because they're short descriptions, most of their meaning comes from association rather than exact description, i.e. their meaning is heavily related to what else is given the same descriptor. Since the words in the description itself have meaning, it's also totally reasonable to describe something with words that accurately describe it, even if it is fairly different from other things also described by those two words.

And I see no particular reason to involve tropes in this to any substantial degree, because they aren't enormously useful here. A lot of fiction is distinguished more by its setting and furniture than by the particular tropes. Drizz't Do'Urden books are superhero stories, not because the tropes of beating up minions, saving innocent cities, and having another inconclusive battle with his arch-nemisis are really distinct from a superhero story, but because he fights orcs with swords and there's dragons. A superhero story has modern cities and dudes with power-themed names.

[Eldan]

I
Hasn't HBO billed the story as "Game of Thrones" since that is what the story is about? The war for the Throne? I can't recall the issues with the Others being treated as anything but filler material in the novels except for either Bran's or Jon's POVs. Out of sight, out of mind, and all that.


That's the TV show. We're talkign about the books, which are very different in a lot of regards, mostly regarding their views on violence and evil and when it is right (or cool).

The books are called Song of Ice and Fire. The important plot is about Dragons and Valyrians and R'hllor and the Others and the Children. It's about the end of the world, eternal winter and fire standing against ice.

[GloatingSwine]

You have a point here. Lazy journalists and advertisers are misusing the term 'epic fantasy' when they apply it to ASoIaF. They seem to believe it just means really long. As in, getting to the end of it is an epic feat, because that's the world we live in now. I would definitely characterise the Planetos setting as 'low fantasy'.

You realise that being "low fantasy" and being "epic" are not in fact mutually exclusive?

Low Fantasy simply means that magic, if it exists, is rare and exceptional. Epic fantasy means that the tale is great in scope and scale.

A Song of Ice and Fire is a tale of a succession war that engulfs two entire continents, which is definitely epic, and is also a tale where magic has a zero to minimal impact on daily life, so it's also low fantasy.


Epic basically just means long, and is often associated with stories of war, fighting, soldiers, etc. A Song of Ice and Fire certainly fulfills these requirements.

Epic doesn't necessarily mean long, and long doesn't necessarily mean epic. Epic means big. The events are big in scope, scale, and consequence. The Dresden Files is getting quite long, it's actually longer by word count than A Song of Ice and Fire at this point (1.9 million words vs. 1.7), but it isn't epic because it has so far been constrained to the scope and consequence of one H. Dresden esquire, and even the things that happened bigly like the war with the Red Court mostly happened offscreen whilst we were actually concerned with a thing happening to Harry that year.

Codex Alera, on the other hand, despite being much much shorter than The Dresden Files is epic. It's a story about an existential war that nearly shatters a world and upends its social order.



Hasn't HBO billed the story as "Game of Thrones" since that is what the story is about? The war for the Throne? I can't recall the issues with the Others being treated as anything but filler material in the novels except for either Bran's or Jon's POVs. Out of sight, out of mind, and all that.


More likely they've done that because there's a strong expectation among TV audiences that a show will keep one title throughout its run, and people would get confused if they kept changing the name every season thinking it was a spinoff or unrelated. (Hence also why the TV version of The Expanse is called The Expanse and not using the book titles for seasons)

[tonberrian]

Robert Jordan proved this is no obstacle...

The grave is no bar to my call.

[Fri]

Then why have them and use them?


Genre aren't a specific, mathematical constant. Heck, no descriptor are as "constant" or "precise" as people think. Descriptors are used to separate relatively different things for human's convenience. For example, no description of "species" are immutable, there's always exception, even the latest one. The description of species, genus, family, etc that we're taught at school? Very imprecise and a big simplification. But they're still useful, even in biological feed where it's known even the latest description of species using DNA analysis is imprecise. Because the goal is not placing things in immutable rigid boxes for whatever reason. It's for ease of study in comparison of other things.

For example, I could separate Cat, Dog, Bear, Orcas, Horses, Sharks, in different ways. I could separate Cat, Dog, Bear, Orcas, Sharks as carnivores, in comparison to herbivore horse. I could separate Cat, Dog, Bear, Horse, Orcas, as mammals, in comparison to Shark. I could separate Cat, Dog, Bear, Horse as land-dwelling animals, in comparison to Orcas and Sharks, etc.

So for example, Harry Potter? You could market it as many things, depending on what you want to compare/differentiate it to. You could market it as young adult novel. You could market it as high fantasy novel. You could market it as a bildungsroman. You could market it as urban fantasy novel. You could market it as boarding-school novel, which is a traditional genre in UK. And so on.

[Aedilred]

Incidentally, I don't think Ned's problem was specifically that he was too honourable - rather it's that he didn't take appropriate precautions due to his expectations. A letter sent to Robb and Catelyn back in Winterfell that read "STANNIS IS THE LEGITIMATE HEIR TO THE IRON THRONE; IF I DIE PLEASE DECLARE FOR HIM RATHER THAN DECIDING TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE" the whole problem would have been much easier to deal with.

To be fair to Ned, he did at least make an attempt to get the word out, but his ship (which was meant to convey the message) was intercepted before it left and the message recovered. In the TV show, Stannis hears about his legitimacy from Ned, because it's easier than trying to explain the intricacies of the plot. In the books, Stannis works it out first, tells Jon Arryn, and then Ned just follows their footsteps to make the discovery for himself. He could have sent a raven, in theory, but that would require going through Pycelle, who Ned doesn't trust at all and suspects had a role in Jon Arryn's death.

Ned made a handful of whopping mistakes (warning Cersei, ignoring Renly, trusting Littlefinger), but his biggest failing was being overtaken by events.

Personally I think that Stannis deserves to cop a lot more of the blame for that whole fiascothan he generally does, and this is a frequent and sore subject of discussion on the Westeros forums. The question of what the hell Stannis was doing for the duration of the first book, brooding on Dragonstone, refusing to reach out to potential and likely allies (including Ned), and allowing everyone else to seize the initiative - which creates the power vacuum in the anti-Lannister resistance which Renly takes it upon himself to fill - is one which I think it's difficult to form a convincing answer to which makes Stannis come out looking great.



I mean: Star Trek is Science Fiction, Star Wars is Space Opera. You couldn't or usually wouldn't flip them and put Trek in Space Opera, with Star Wars in Science Fiction. So, clearly the Genres have to have some defining traits or why use them?
You've seen the JJ Abrams Trek films, right?

In any case, ASoIaF has a lot of elements typical of epic fantasy, including in fact the apparent plot armour of most of the main characters. It does a good job of disguising that, though, but by the point the books have currently reached these elements are becoming increasingly visible. Indeed even the series title, A Song of Ice and Fire, is pretty much a cookie-cutter epic fantasy title. That the TV show went with the catchier "Game of Thrones" is not all that surprising and doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the themes of the books. Especially since I think it's apparent to many readers that, while the show (apparently) remains entertaining, it has in a number of cases completely missed the point.

Even the lack of high fantasy is debatable - at this point we have dragons, revenants, "halflings", giants, illusionists, shapeshifters, magic mind-control and time-travelling tree magic in play to various extents and that's not even the full list, to say nothing of the magic ice elves who are on their way.

I think it's also worth mentioning that one of the classic distinctions between high and low fantasy is that low fantasy is set on Earth, whereas high fantasy is set on a fictional world. That distinction has been substantially eroded through common use but, using it, ASoIaF is absolutely high fantasy despite the grey-and-grey morality.

[Legato Endless]

So for example, Harry Potter? You could market it as many things, depending on what you want to compare/differentiate it to. You could market it as young adult novel. You could market it as high fantasy novel. You could market it as a bildungsroman. You could market it as urban fantasy novel. You could market it as boarding-school novel, which is a traditional genre in UK. And so on.

Or for a 'pure' fantasy example encompassing different subgenres: Berserk is a tale of man ripped from the pages of Heroic Fantasy struggling through a Dark Fantasy world. The extended flashback story arc is Low Fantasy. Whenever an eclipse or other supernatural phenomena occurs, anyone caught inside it realizes they're also living in a Cosmic Horror Story.


I think it's also worth mentioning that one of the classic distinctions between high and low fantasy is that low fantasy is set on Earth, whereas high fantasy is set on a fictional world. That distinction has been substantially eroded through common use but, using it, ASoIaF is absolutely high fantasy despite the grey-and-grey morality.

Even in the beginning it was never particularly ironclad, as The Lord of the Rings, the archetypical popularizer of the genre is set in Earth's mythic past. For that matter, a general description of the events The Children of Húrin would give you a dark fantasy with a similar tone and subject matter to A Song of Ice and Fire. Incest, torture, suicide, attempted and offscreen rape, cold blooded murder. The bad guy wins. Everyone else dies.

[Fri]

Also as reminder, marketing failure that happens because the market team are promoting the work as "wrong" genre happens all the time.

The random example on the top of my head now is Guardian of Galaxy. It's marketed as superhero movie, though in my opinion it's obvious that it'll have more success if it's marketed as a space-adventure movie ala Star Wars. It's not that it's wrong, guardian of galaxy is from a "superhero" comic, and the characters can be considered superhero as well, but it's also a star-wars style space adventure movie, and I think it's stronger if they market it from that side. I'm pretty sure there's much more obvious or stronger example, it's just the one coming out from the top of my head.

[factotum]

Ned made a handful of whopping mistakes (warning Cersei, ignoring Renly, trusting Littlefinger), but his biggest failing was being overtaken by events.


I think all three of those come down to the same failing, if you can call it that--Ned was rigidly honourable in all his dealings, and he expected the same of everyone else. Of course you warn Cersei and allow her to do the honourable thing before revealing her incest to the world. Of course you can trust the man who your wife grew up with as a child. Of course Renly isn't going to do anything stupid like declare himself King and start a rebellion, he doesn't even have prime right of succession to the throne!

Mind you, if Renly had been even less honourable than that and had made sure to "deal" with Stannis before declaring his claim to the throne, things would have turned out very differently...

[An Enemy Spy]

I think all three of those come down to the same failing, if you can call it that--Ned was rigidly honourable in all his dealings, and he expected the same of everyone else. Of course you warn Cersei and allow her to do the honourable thing before revealing her incest to the world. Of course you can trust the man who your wife grew up with as a child. Of course Renly isn't going to do anything stupid like declare himself King and start a rebellion, he doesn't even have prime right of succession to the throne!

Mind you, if Renly had been even less honourable than that and had made sure to "deal" with Stannis before declaring his claim to the throne, things would have turned out very differently...

I don't think Ned expects other people to be honorable. He thought Cersei would run to the Free Cities and didn't count on her being able to have Robert killed on his hunting trip. He knew Littlefinger was a snake but he didn't realize how much the man hated him personally and that their interests were aligned at the time. Littlefinger had been helping him uncover the truth about Cersei after all.

[An Enemy Spy]

Also as reminder, marketing failure that happens because the market team are promoting the work as "wrong" genre happens all the time.

The random example on the top of my head now is Guardian of Galaxy. It's marketed as superhero movie, though in my opinion it's obvious that it'll have more success if it's marketed as a space-adventure movie ala Star Wars. It's not that it's wrong, guardian of galaxy is from a "superhero" comic, and the characters can be considered superhero as well, but it's also a star-wars style space adventure movie, and I think it's stronger if they market it from that side. I'm pretty sure there's much more obvious or stronger example, it's just the one coming out from the top of my head.

Guardians of the Galaxy marketed itself exactly as it was: a fun space adventure filled with jokes, classic rock, and entertaining action. There was absolutely nothing false about the advertising.

[Fri]

I don't think Ned expects other people to be honorable. He thought Cersei would run to the Free Cities and didn't count on her being able to have Robert killed on his hunting trip. He knew Littlefinger was a snake but he didn't realize how much the man hated him personally and that their interests were aligned at the time. Littlefinger had been helping him uncover the truth about Cersei after all.

That's my view as well. He thought he come prepared, but it turned out his preparation is not enough. He definitely expected for Cersei to run away, and not actually kill Robert.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Personally I think that Stannis deserves to cop a lot more of the blame for that whole fiasco than he generally does, and this is a frequent and sore subject of discussion on the Westeros forums.

Really? I thought it was generally acknowledged thay pre-Blackwater Stannis isn't a great leader. He's bitter, stubborn and selfish and it's not until he gets beaten on the Blackwater that he actually takes a look at himself and realises what it means to be a King.

[Aedilred]

Really? I thought it was generally acknowledged thay pre-Blackwater Stannis isn't a great leader. He's bitter, stubborn and selfish and it's not until he gets beaten on the Blackwater that he actually takes a look at himself and realises what it means to be a King.

Either the StanStans have deserted the forum en masse since I last spent any time there, or you've just been lucky enough not to be exposed to the full horror of a Stannis thread.

I mean, I agree with you, as do most people, I think, but Stannis has a very vocal fanbase who will defend anything he has ever done to the death.



Mind you, if Renly had been even less honourable than that and had made sure to "deal" with Stannis before declaring his claim to the throne, things would have turned out very differently...

I'm inclined to give Renly a pass, for the most part. What I mean by Ned's error there is that when Renly comes to him with the offer to put his men at Ned's disposal and secure Robert's children before the king dies, on the basis that if they delay action until morning it'll be too late, Ned goes "nah" for no particularly good reason. As it happens, Renly turns out to have been completely right, Ned's attempt to claim the regency fails disastrously, and that's the end of that. Some criticise Renly for not sticking around to support Ned, but given how self-defeating Ned's plan turned out to be, I can't bring myself to blame Renly for getting out of town instead of throwing himself on Ned's funeral pyre. Ned also completely fails to mention to Renly that Joffrey isn't a legitimate heir and that his plan is to support Stannis, which ends up screwing up Stannis's plans because his own brother isn't aware of the full facts until it's too late. And again I think Stannis deserves some blame here: he flees King's Landing out of fear for his own safety but fails to inform either of his brothers of what he's discovered or of the danger he believes faces their family, thus not only putting both of them even more at risk but also ensuring (to his own knowledge) that if anything does happen to him, Cersei's secret dies with him. Ultimately he deprives his brothers of his counsel and protection right at the time when he has reason to believe they will need it most, and indirectly this contributes substantially to the deaths of both of them and the ruin of his house.

In principle, Renly could have checked in with Stannis before declaring himself king, but this was a period when speed was largely of the essence, and Renly's own powerbase and safe havens were in the opposite direction to Dragonstone. There are ravens, but all the rebels seem to be treating them as unreliable for conveying important information in this period - see Stannis sending people to spread word of the incest in person rather than ravens to all the lords of the Stormlands. At this point with the incest still unknown outside Dragonstone and a couple of well-informed folk at court, Renly was unaware that there were any grounds for rebellion other than general opposition to the Lannisters, in which case he was a much better figurehead than Stannis anyway, being more popular both at court and with the people, more personally powerful, and with readymade connections to the largest army in Westeros.

From a purely practical perspective, it would make more sense for Stannis to side with Renly than with Renly to side with Stannis. I think if readers can forget what happens later, and look past Renly's opportunism (which seems to be held against him more than against most characters) and the legality of the succession (in any case not a major factor for any characters except Ned and Stannis's followers in the books themselves) I think it's fairly easy to make the argument that from the point he contested Joff's succession until his death, Renly was not only a more obvious choice as king than his brother but would probably have been a better one.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Cersei's secret dies with him

...except that all the members of the small council (including Renly), plus Tyrion and Illyrio at the very least, know the secret. That's why Renly's original plan was to get Margery into Robert's bed (what would that achieve if Joffrey was legitimate?). It doesn't necessarily invalidate your points about Ned and Renly in the immediate aftermath of Robert's death, but to call the incest a 'secret'...?

And I think you're underselling how much the laws of succession matter to the Westerosi nobility as a whole. Just look at Robb's reaction when he hears Renly has declared himself King ("Bran can't be lord of Winterfell before me"): their entire social structure is threatened by Renly's 'might makes right' approach, which makes him a terrible figurehead.

[An Enemy Spy]

Imagine if someone lost the US election but got enough of the military on their side to take the White House by force. This is essentially what Renly is trying to do.

[factotum]

And I think you're underselling how much the laws of succession matter to the Westerosi nobility as a whole. Just look at Robb's reaction when he hears Renly has declared himself King ("Bran can't be lord of Winterfell before me"): their entire social structure is threatened by Renly's 'might makes right' approach, which makes him a terrible figurehead.

Yeah, I agree there. That's why I really don't understand how the TV writers have managed to get into a situation where no fewer than four rulers in Westeros have no right to their positions.


From north to south:
Jon Snow--declared King in the North, but he's a bastard and thus has no right to that title.
Cersei--with the death of her last child she has no claim on the Iron Throne whatsoever, yet apparently she's just been crowned Queen anyway.
Olenna Tyrell--largely the same situation as Cersei; she's the mother of the dead ruler of the Reach (Mace Tyrell) so has no claim on the throne there.
Ellaria Sand--this one is a slam dunk. Unlike the other three, who at least share blood with one or more of the recent rulers in their part of the world, she's just the paramour (aka mistress/girlfriend) of the younger brother of the last ruler of Dorne. How on earth any of the Dornish lords have gone along with her is beyond me.

[GloatingSwine]

Yeah, I agree there. That's why I really don't understand how the TV writers have managed to get into a situation where no fewer than four rulers in Westeros have no right to their positions.


From north to south:
Jon Snow--declared King in the North, but he's a bastard and thus has no right to that title.
Cersei--with the death of her last child she has no claim on the Iron Throne whatsoever, yet apparently she's just been crowned Queen anyway.
Olenna Tyrell--largely the same situation as Cersei; she's the mother of the dead ruler of the Reach (Mace Tyrell) so has no claim on the throne there.
Ellaria Sand--this one is a slam dunk. Unlike the other three, who at least share blood with one or more of the recent rulers in their part of the world, she's just the paramour (aka mistress/girlfriend) of the younger brother of the last ruler of Dorne. How on earth any of the Dornish lords have gone along with her is beyond me.


Who had the right to what titles in a feudal system largely depended on getting everyone else to agree that you had them, through diplomacy, persuasion, marriage, or force.

There were technically rules, but they were often treated more like guidelines.

[Legato Endless]

Really? I thought it was generally acknowledged thay pre-Blackwater Stannis isn't a great leader. He's bitter, stubborn and selfish and it's not until he gets beaten on the Blackwater that he actually takes a look at himself and realises what it means to be a King.

Pretty much.


And I think you're underselling how much the laws of succession matter to the Westerosi nobility as a whole. Just look at Robb's reaction when he hears Renly has declared himself King ("Bran can't be lord of Winterfell before me"): their entire social structure is threatened by Renly's 'might makes right' approach, which makes him a terrible figurehead.


Imagine if someone lost the US election but got enough of the military on their side to take the White House by force. This is essentially what Renly is trying to do.

It's fairly telling that when Cat calls for a Great Council, Renly rejects it emphatically. Not because he naively thinks everyone should follow him by duty like Stannis pre-character development, but because he knows he's not getting the throne in that situation. This is not the picture of future stability.


Yeah, I agree there. That's why I really don't understand how the TV writers have managed to get into a situation where no fewer than four rulers in Westeros have no right to their positions.


From north to south:
Jon Snow--declared King in the North, but he's a bastard and thus has no right to that title.
Cersei--with the death of her last child she has no claim on the Iron Throne whatsoever, yet apparently she's just been crowned Queen anyway.
Olenna Tyrell--largely the same situation as Cersei; she's the mother of the dead ruler of the Reach (Mace Tyrell) so has no claim on the throne there.
Ellaria Sand--this one is a slam dunk. Unlike the other three, who at least share blood with one or more of the recent rulers in their part of the world, she's just the paramour (aka mistress/girlfriend) of the younger brother of the last ruler of Dorne. How on earth any of the Dornish lords have gone along with her is beyond me.


That last one is mind boggling even by the looser standards of the show.

[Jan Mattys]

I have read all five, all of the "A song of Ice and Fire". My referring to me as GoT is simply copying what plenty of others have done when referring to the novels and Show combined. I have read each book cover to cover.
Well, Let's See:

...things...



I too have read the books. And in all fairness, I must say that this is in my personal top ten for biased comments. Like, ever.

[Frozen_Feet]

Imagine if someone lost the US election but got enough of the military on their side to take the White House by force. This is essentially what Renly is trying to do.

Hey, it worked for Julius Ceasar Jr.. At least untill, you know, the Brute thing.

[Aedilred]

And I think you're underselling how much the laws of succession matter to the Westerosi nobility as a whole. Just look at Robb's reaction when he hears Renly has declared himself King ("Bran can't be lord of Winterfell before me"): their entire social structure is threatened by Renly's 'might makes right' approach, which makes him a terrible figurehead.

But Renly has a point that he's just acting on the precedent set by Robert. Robert displaced the legitimate heirs through strength of arms and everyone fell into line behind him. And nobody since then in a position to do anything about it has kicked up a fuss about Robert not being a legitimate king because his claim to the throne was weak. (We know the Martells think that, but they're not saying it). Robert overthrew a tyrannical regime and ensured a measure of stability, which is what Renly's trying to do himself.

Joff isn't yet as openly horrifying as Aerys was, but he's showing signs of it: he's himself defied regular succession law by insisting he take personal power before he's of age; he's sacked Barristan and executed Ned, widely regarded as the two most honourable men in Westeros, so that's not promising; he's signed off on the rape of the Riverlands and - indeed - an attack on the king's own banner, by making the perpetrator Hand of the King. And now he's summoning the assembled nobility of Westeros to come and swear allegiance to him immediately on pain of death. While the last may not be inherently unreasonable, Sansa (who has a pretty good understanding of how court protocol works) is taken aback by it, and again it smacks of the overbearing demands made by Aerys at the end of his reign. There is certainly a case for putting a stop to the Joffrey-Cersei show before it really gets going.

As to how much the succession order matters to other lords of Westeros, there are plenty of precedents for inconvenient older children being shuffled out of the way. Sam is sent to the Wall. Aemon Targaryen is made a maester. Jaime was appointed to the Kingsguard. A number of Targaryen heirs were just passed over, because nobody wanted them. Gerold Lannister is suspected to have killed his older brother and niece, but everyone let it slide because he was a good lord. Even to take the Starks themselves as an example and thus put Robb's complaint about the succession order in context, Manderly sends Davos to get Rickon, who he considers his king, even though so far as he knows Bran is still alive. This is largely pragmatism (he knows where Rickon is, but not Bran) but still, the ultimate Stark loyalist just wants a Stark, not necessarily the next in line. Stannis himself is prepared to unprecedentedly release Jon from the Wall so that he can become lord of Winterfell. And Robert has already broken with the normal chain of succession by making Renly lord of Storm's End, rather than Stannis - and nobody seems to have had a problem with this apart from Stannis himself.

Renly was probably partly put off the idea of a great council by the knowledge that his claim was legally weak. But the principal reason for him not to do it is that at that point he has a massive strategic advantage over the other candidates, and therefore he has the most to lose by laying down arms and agreeing to talk it out. He's also probably aware in the back of his mind that while he was able to convince the Reach to follow him through strength of personality, if given a choice between Stannis and Tywin it's a complete toss-up. At least until he's on the Iron Throne, too, he is reliant on their continued support for him, in which case laying down his claim stands a good chance of driving them away in disgust. Meanwhile there is also pretty much zero chance of Joff and Tywin agreeing to a Great Council, as it acknowledges that Joff's legitimacy is in question and so even if he is ultimately crowned those rumours will always persist. And finally that if the hypothetical Great Council subsequently does decide on Joffrey, his nephew is such a vindictive little git that at the first opportunity Renly himself will probably be for the chop, no matter what assurances are given. The idea of a Great Council is not in itself a terrible idea, but it's presented far too late in the day for the leading candidates to be in a position to agree to it, and it's naive of Cat to think that they might. Really the time for that would have been upon Robert's death and proclaimed by Ned, but he missed that opportunity.

I'm not going to deny that Renly's succession would present legal difficulties and probably contribute to future instability. But I think part of the point the series is trying to make is that despite its lofty claims of clear succession and honour-based rule, the system is inherently unstable and to a very great extent might makes right in that sort of society.


As to the level of secrecy surrounding the incest, yes, Varys and Littlefinger know, but they're also the premier spymasters of the kingdom, so that's not that surprising, and there's no real indication that they've shared that knowledge with anyone else in Westeros except by implication and allusion (perhaps one of them dropped the clue that Stannis followed in the first place?). Illyrio knows because he's Varys's partner, but he's not at court. I can't remember at what point Tyrion works it out, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't know until after the war starts - after Stannis tells everyone. Barristan doesn't know, and Jon Arryn only really works it out on his deathbed, so it's not something the Small Council are all in on. That Varys and Littlefinger know is not in itself indicative that the incest is an open secret. If it were, Stannis would have had no reason not to tell Robert, rather than fleeing in fear of his own life. And had Renly known at the time he left King's Landing, he would probably have flagged it up himself as part of his own claim as another reason to depose Joff.

[Ruslan]

And I think you're underselling how much the laws of succession matter to the Westerosi nobility as a whole. Just look at Robb's reaction when he hears Renly has declared himself King ("Bran can't be lord of Winterfell before me"): their entire social structure is threatened by Renly's 'might makes right' approach, which makes him a terrible figurehead.



But Renly has a point that he's just acting on the precedent set by Robert. Robert displaced the legitimate heirs through strength of arms and everyone fell into line behind him. And nobody since then in a position to do anything about it has kicked up a fuss about Robert not being a legitimate king because his claim to the throne was weak. (We know the Martells think that, but they're not saying it). Robert overthrew a tyrannical regime and ensured a measure of stability, which is what Renly's trying to do himself.
I think we can summarize that in Westeros, just as in the real middle ages, following proper lines of succession is important, but cutting off the other guy's head with a sword is slightly more important.

[Aedilred]

I think we can summarize that in Westeros, just as in the real middle ages, following proper lines of succession is important, but cutting off the other guy's head with a sword is slightly more important.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Henry VII of England.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Well, yeah, military hegemony is clearly very important.

But even if I accept that Robert's precedent provides Renly with enough legal cover, his claim that his right is "as good as Robert's ever was" is FAKE NEWS. Robert's support was drawn from the united strength of four (later five) Kingdoms - more than anyone could reasonably oppose - whereas Renly has two half-kingdoms behind him (and only one decent general, to whom he doesn't listen), while Robert's blood-claim was a 'best-of-the-rest' scenario, whereas Renly's is clearly superseded by Stannis and Shireen. SAD!

[Ruslan]

I see what you did there.

[russdm]

So why didn't Stannis kill Cersei, then present the Incest after the fact? He cares about Law doesn't he?

Even more important, why was Tywin allowed to have Cersei marry Robert as opposed to someone else? Didn't every other ruler know that allowing that would have caused the Lannisters to get a strong hold on the throne? Were they that stupid?

Why didn't Renly make it public about the Incest once the conflict had started? Why didn't anyone? It would have completely destroyed Tywin's support.

As soon as he knew, Arryn should have made it public, or sent it in a message to Ned, telling him. It should have been made known even if it wasn't determined to be true or not. Didn't other medieval rulers make claims or publish rumors that rivals were bastards?

As for the guard of the king, why weren't they castrated as part of becoming a member. Shouldn't that be a standard method for someone declaring they won't have any children because of their vow? Shouldn't it be the standard now?

The two would be most eager for the news to come out for the most benefit would be Varys and Littlefinger, if their goal was to forment chaos for a Targayen to return, and chaos in general if that is what Littlefinger wants.

Why didn't Stannis say anything at any point to Robert as soon as he knew? Is Stannis that incapable not being a moron?

[An Enemy Spy]

So why didn't Stannis kill Cersei, then present the Incest after the fact? He cares about Law doesn't he?

Even more important, why was Tywin allowed to have Cersei marry Robert as opposed to someone else? Didn't every other ruler know that allowing that would have caused the Lannisters to get a strong hold on the throne? Were they that stupid?

Why didn't Renly make it public about the Incest once the conflict had started? Why didn't anyone? It would have completely destroyed Tywin's support.

As soon as he knew, Arryn should have made it public, or sent it in a message to Ned, telling him. It should have been made known even if it wasn't determined to be true or not. Didn't other medieval rulers make claims or publish rumors that rivals were bastards?

As for the guard of the king, why weren't they castrated as part of becoming a member. Shouldn't that be a standard method for someone declaring they won't have any children because of their vow? Shouldn't it be the standard now?

The two would be most eager for the news to come out for the most benefit would be Varys and Littlefinger, if their goal was to forment chaos for a Targayen to return, and chaos in general if that is what Littlefinger wants.

Why didn't Stannis say anything at any point to Robert as soon as he knew? Is Stannis that incapable not being a moron?

A: Because you can't just murder the Queen. Duh.

B: Stannis knew that Robert would take any accusation from him as a self serving lie born out of jealousy. They weren't on anything even approaching good terms.

C: Castrate the Kingsguard? There's a good way to end up on the end of a sword if I've ever heard one. Becoming a knight of the Kingsguard is seen as the pinnacle of knighthood and manliness. What knight is going to agree to have his manhood cut off? You think the Secret Service would agree to having their penises cut off? Do you? I'm actually curious. I want a window into how your mind works. I can't believe I'm in a situation where I have to ask a question like this. You've floored me, Russdm. You've absolutely floored me.

[warty goblin]

Also, castrating an adult man is likely to have some fairly significant negative effects on their physical ability. Probably not a great idea if you're looking to keep and maintain genuinely talented fighters. And, until Cersai starts jamming it full of random Kettleblacks, the Kingsguard seems like they actually are quite skilled swordsmen.

[Aedilred]

So why didn't Stannis kill Cersei, then present the Incest after the fact? He cares about Law doesn't he?
Because he cares about the law. Killing Cersei would be murder, and hence illegal. What he wants to do is have her proven guilty of treason, and legally executed.


Even more important, why was Tywin allowed to have Cersei marry Robert as opposed to someone else? Didn't every other ruler know that allowing that would have caused the Lannisters to get a strong hold on the throne? Were they that stupid?
Politics. Jon, Hoster and Ned may not have trusted Tywin, but they know he's intelligent, and proud, and rich, and powerful, and that his support was critical to winning the war. They need him to keep the credit taps open, and they also need his army, because if, in the immediate aftermath of the war, he switches sides and joins the Reach and Dorne, that's going to be a nightmare for everyone, especially the Riverlands. He's a powerful figure they need on the inside, and having Robert marry Cersei is the best way to keep him onside (along with retaining Jaime on the Kingsguard). Not to mention that she is, I think, the only Lord Paramount's daughter still of age and single at that point, and thus the highest-status eligible woman in the kingdom, a fit bride for a king.

That they fail to keep the Lannisters in check during Robert's reign is down to Robert's failings as king. If he'd been more interested and invested in the business of governing and had the strength of character to handle Cersei properly, the balance of power at court wouldn't have tilted so much in their favour.

Why didn't Renly make it public about the Incest once the conflict had started? Why didn't anyone? It would have completely destroyed Tywin's support.
Renly didn't because he didn't know. Stannis, eventually, did get the word out, but wasted too much time before doing so trying to garner support privately. By the time he did, lines had already been drawn, allegiances made, and Cersei and Tyrion were spreading false rumours about his own marriage which made it look like he was just retaliating to their gossip rather than telling the truth. It does erode Joff's support and credibility, but people are also realists and are prepared to tolerate the situation if it looks like they'll do better out of it than the alternative - and as long as Tywin is alive, he's someone worth at least considering doing a deal with. We have to remember that Tywin is something of a legend in his own lifetime, and casts a shadow over the whole of Westeros. Once he's gone, the Lannister (or rather, Baratheon of Kings Landing) position collapses very quickly because Cersei isn't Tywin and has been discredited by the rumours. Nobody's afraid of her, too many people hate her, and she's not competent enough to manage the situation.

As soon as he knew, Arryn should have made it public, or sent it in a message to Ned, telling him. It should have been made known even if it wasn't determined to be true or not. Didn't other medieval rulers make claims or publish rumors that rivals were bastards?
There's a difference between declaring a rival king a bastard and accusing the king's children of being bastards. The former is a way of delegitimising someone who's already your enemy; the latter is insulting your liege lord by calling him a cuckold and insulting his children (of which fathers tend to be protective). You don't make a claim like that until you're sure you can prove it. Although the timeline is shaky, it seems Jon Arryn only gathered the proof he needed very late in the day, at which point his wife killed him, and he didn't have the opportunity to get the word out. It's dangerous stuff to put in a raven, too, especially since the ravens go through Pycelle, who was suspected to be in the Lannisters' pocket and may himself have helped finish Jon Arryn off.


As for the guard of the king, why weren't they castrated as part of becoming a member. Shouldn't that be a standard method for someone declaring they won't have any children because of their vow? Shouldn't it be the standard now?
No.


The two would be most eager for the news to come out for the most benefit would be Varys and Littlefinger, if their goal was to forment chaos for a Targayen to return, and chaos in general if that is what Littlefinger wants.
Littlefinger wanting chaos is a show thing. We don't know for certain what book-Littlefinger wants (apart from Sansa, perhaps). But the news getting out early is bad from the perspective of creating instability. If it's discovered and proven while Robert's alive, he disowns, possibly executes, his children, and most likely remarries. Or perhaps he legitimises Edric Storm. In any case the matter of the succession becomes much clearer: if he dies without a legitimate/legitimised heir of the body, everyone knows Stannis is next in line, or Renly if Stannis meets with an "accident". The Lannisters might protest but with no real support they will easily be dealt with. Robert might even rediscover his warrior-king mojo. The kingdom remains whole and pretty stable. By keeping it under wraps until Robert is dead, it produces a disputed succession and serious civil war, which is the opportunity Varys and Illyrio need to launch their own plans.


Why didn't Stannis say anything at any point to Robert as soon as he knew? Is Stannis that incapable not being a moron?
Because although he is certain to his own satisfaction, he doesn't have definitive proof. (The book Ned gets from Pycelle is considered to be that, and Stannis doesn't have it). But more than that, it looks self-serving if it comes from Stannis since it would make him the heir, and he and Robert don't really get on. It's a dangerous thing to put to Robert and needs to be done right: Stannis knows himself well enough to know he's not the man to do it. He goes to Jon Arryn because he knows Jon is in a much better position to convince Robert of the truth.

[russdm]

Stuff


That all sounds understandable.

[Legato Endless]

Well, yeah, military hegemony is clearly very important.

But even if I accept that Robert's precedent provides Renly with enough legal cover, his claim that his right is "as good as Robert's ever was" is FAKE NEWS. Robert's support was drawn from the united strength of four (later five) Kingdoms - more than anyone could reasonably oppose - whereas Renly has two half-kingdoms behind him (and only one decent general, to whom he doesn't listen), while Robert's blood-claim was a 'best-of-the-rest' scenario, whereas Renly's is clearly superseded by Stannis and Shireen. SAD!

Pretty much. Which is why no one in the series outside his direct supporters accepts it.

Renly has several flaws, the key one here is his fundamental failure to understand might alone doesn't make right even in an intensely hypocritical society. You need might certainly, but you also need a few other things. Conquerors who overthrew kingdoms by force of arms in history were prone to marrying the daughters of the fallen dynasty. Why? What's the point? Can you answer that question? Because Renly couldn't.

Everyone sees Renly making a naked power grab. If might alone is everything, the Targs, who wielded might as absolute as you can get, wouldn't have needed to make concessions. They wouldn't have needed to convert to the faith of the Seven. Jaehaerys wouldn't have needed to ply a different tactic than Maegor. And that's the problem. Renly can't answer Varys' riddle. He thinks a bunch of swords and some charisma are enough. But there's limits to that. The law might not often mean much, but cultural norms, justifications internal/external do matter. Legitimacy is what augurs societies together. If it's all merely a game, it's a game people are quite willing to die for. Power is more complex than Renly understands. It's why Tywin puts a lot of effort in letting the Freys take all the credit for the Red Wedding. Because it doesn't matter how big your army is, if no one ever trusts your family again.

Power is complicated, and there's more to it than naked force. Pretending you live in an honorable world is Sansa's mistake. Assuming men are merely meat who bow to their nearest overlord is why Roose Bolton is going to have to confront the reality that the North remembers. Which is as previously pointed out, is one kind of a problem with presenting ASoIaF's message as merely being, better a monster than a fool. Cersei is (occasionally) pretty able to bribe and threaten her way through certain types of people. Unfortunately, other people like the High Sparrow exist. People are quite willing to object to your rule if you haven't got/found/manufactured the right normative claims. If Renly understood that, his death would be more tragic to me. As it stands, he looks like another deconstruction of someone not getting the whole picture.

[Aedilred]

Pretty much. Which is why no one in the series outside his direct supporters accepts it.
Although this looks a little like circular reasoning: nobody accepts his claim apart from the people who accept his claim.

As it stands, he looks like another deconstruction of someone not getting the whole picture.
Anyway, this got me onto thinking about wider themes in the series and the way that contrary to the oft-stated opinion that characters die randomly and the bad guys always win, the series is replete with examples of villains or antagonists subjected to a degree of poetic justice, or at least disposed of in a satisfactory fashion.

Amory Lorch is eaten by the bear he fed prisoners to for his own entertainment. Vargo Hoat is flayed alive. Gregor Clegane dies a slow and agonising death at the hands of a man avenging his raped and murdered sister. Renly is murdered by the brother he usurped. Tywin is killed by the son he despised. Viserys is given the "crown" he demanded and it kills him. Joffrey, of course; Balon Greyjoy; Robert, if you take that view; Oberyn Martell*; Khal Drogo; Pycelle; Aerys, and most of the Kingsguard who enabled him.

This is disguised and overlooked partly because the series also makes a feature of decent men being betrayed and killed for trying to do the decent thing (Ned, Robb, Jon Snow, etc.), and also because at the current point in time it still looks like the antagonists are winning. But (valid!) arguments about genre deconstruction aside where the former is concerned, I think the point can't be hammered home enough that the story is still only about 3/5 done, so you'd expect the antagonists to be winning. If the good guys were winning at this point, there wouldn't be much of a story left to tell in the last two books. Complaining that the antagonists are shown to be too successful, to use a popular analogy, is a bit like claiming Star Wars is an exercise in cynicism because the bad guys are winning at the end of The Empire Strikes Back. Such a view also completely ignores the nascent redemption arcs visible for some of the characters who were formerly antagonists and who seem to be shifting position, most notably Jaime Lannister.

Given what we've seen so far, I think we can expect most of the antagonists currently riding high to meet ends just as sticky as those who've copped it so far.

This is one of the real problems of trying to assess themes and morals from a series that isn't finished. Hell, we've had disagreement in this very thread as to what the main plot of the series actually is! But taking what we have, looking at it in an unbiased way, and extrapolating from it, I think it's hard to draw the conclusion that the series is cynical because the bad guys get away with everything.


*Yeah, I know, and I love him too. But he only looks like a hero because he's cool and witty and standing next to Gregor Clegane. In his own right, he's not a good guy.

[Legato Endless]

*Yeah, I know, and I love him too. But he only looks like a hero because he's cool and witty and standing next to Gregor Clegane. In his own right, he's not a good guy.

You mean the moral value of a man isn't determined by how fun he'd be on a pub crawl?

[factotum]

Such a view also completely ignores the nascent redemption arcs visible for some of the characters who were formerly antagonists and who seem to be shifting position, most notably Jaime Lannister.


Indeed, although since (as far as we know) Brienne is currently taking Jaime to be judged by Catelyn and the Brotherhood, it's going to be interesting to see how he comes out of that. I mean, *we* know that Roose Bolton only mentioned Jaime's name when he killed Robb because Jaime asked him to give Robb his regards the next time he met him, and Roose has a weird sense of honour that way, but Catelyn certainly doesn't!

[Wardog]

This is not a treatise on Monarchy, because it doesn't actually appear. There are no kings, only warlords, and everyone trying to take the top spot. That is not how feudal monarchy works. Feudal Monarchy sees the King's position as coming from God/Pick Deity here and so no one below is really trying to take the crown. There is no game of thrones being played. It doesn't work like that.

People have already addressed this, but I'll make an additional point:

Feudalism / the feudal system / feudal monarchy is not a formally defined system of government that contemporary nobles signed up to. It's a term coined by historians after the fact to describe the politics and economics of pre-modern Europe.

It isn't even a clearly defined concept now: medieval historians tend to think of it in terms of the military relationship between lord and vassel (one history I ready arged its origin was in non-agression treaties between the rival warlords that came to power in the vacuum of the former Roman Empire). Economists and economic historians on the other hand tend to think of it in term of the landowner-tennant relationship. Some people even reject the concept of a feudal system.
Personally, I think this latter point is a bit of a straw-man argument. It seems to me to go something like: '' 'The Feudal System' is supposedly an organised system for government that was known by that name and uniformly implemented across medieval Europe. That didn't exist, therefore there is no such thing as feudalism.

I'm pretty sure that everything that has happened in the politics of ASoIaF (barring magic, zombies and dragons) has happened in real life.
Wars and disputes over the legitimacy (in all senses) of the offical heir happened.
Wars and disputes over the inheritance of titles and kingship happened. (''Eldest male child gets everything'' was neither universal or original, and didn't always happen even when it was the official rule).
Rebellions because ''my ancestor was a king'' happened.
Rebellions because ''I want to be a king'' happened.
Rebellions because ''the King is weak or annoying'' happened.
Invasions because ''my ancestor once ruled there'' happened.
Invasions because ''I can'' happened.
Wars because ''a woman shouldn't inherit the kingdom'' happened.
Wars because ''I'm a more direct descendent of the previous king, even though that line goes through a woman'' happened.
Wars because ''I'm going to temporarily reverse my position on the above two statements, because its convenient'' happened.


She didn't really show much hesitation about letting loose a few thousand Dothraki on a continent, plunging it into a very bloody war just to get the throne, for example.
You are right of course, she is just a kid, she's being pressured from all sides, she's raised in a different culture than I am. So maybe "villain" isn't a good word here, since she doesn't even realise starting wars is a bad thing.
Alright, I'll cave. She's probably more of an antagonist-like not-really-evil-but-does-unpleasant-things protagonist. Not a villain.

I still don't want to see her succeed, though, and it often looks like the narrative expects me to root for her (or other people in similar situations).

I'd put this down as a good example of what others have said about the message of the story, namely ''Feudalism sucks''. Its a system (however defined) that rewards villainary, teaches that people have a right to rule just because they can and/or are descended from people who did, and encourages (or even forces) otherwise good people to be ruthless and aggressive just to survive.

[russdm]

I'd put this down as a good example of what others have said about the message of the story, namely ''Feudalism sucks''. Its a system (however defined) that rewards villainary, teaches that people have a right to rule just because they can and/or are descended from people who did, and encourages (or even forces) otherwise good people to be ruthless and aggressive just to survive.

I think it works more as, "Feudalism sucks people aren't pure good guy types" especially since there are so many fantasy stories that feature a good king that makes everything better or right, since you can make the same arguments that you have made about Democratic systems. Villainous politicians can get ahead, pretty much anybody can get elected and it relies on working the voters in your favor, and being ruthless, aggressive, pays off in politics better than not being that way. I don't think I have heard much about honest politicians doing that well in a democratic system.

Winston Churchill did say that "Democracy is terrible, but we have tried every other system and it is better". (I may mashed the quote some) I think any system run by ordinary humans is going to dysfunctional in some form. Fantasy may claim otherwise, and maybe that applies for the moral here? That some hero making everything work is complete BS?

The rest of what you said is all true. But leaving it at just "Feudalism Sucks" feels somewhat lazy to me. You can replace it with "War sucks", or "Religion sucks", or even "Swords suck", while having most of them workable, but not swords. And considering how great our writer is, would he really reduce the moral to only two words?

[Aedilred]

Winston Churchill did say that "Democracy is terrible, but we have tried every other system and it is better". (I may mashed the quote some) I think any system run by ordinary humans is going to dysfunctional in some form. Fantasy may claim otherwise, and maybe that applies for the moral here? That some hero making everything work is complete BS?

That is a little mashed. Churchill's quote, paraphrased, was that democracy was the worst form of government apart from everything else we've ever tried. It leaves a lot of room for untried forms of government, albeit with the implication that there's a reason they haven't been tried.

But otherwise, yes; I think the moral that the "good king" who can swoop in and save the day is a bogus idea is pretty evident from the outset with Robert, who in a "typical" fantasy story would have been the hero who takes the throne at the end and everything's ok. But it goes to some lengths to show the qualities needed to win the throne are different from those needed to govern well. We're seeing that with Daenerys too, I think.

But - and this is a big but - I feel this lesson is undermined by some of the history we know of Westeros. Admittedly, some of this is told in-character and so we're subject to some biases, and I've heard fan reassessments that point out some of the whopping mistakes that historic kings made. But all the same, Aegon the Conqueror was, by all apperances, a model king. So was Jaehaerys. Both took the thrones following a period of nasty war and by all appearances fixed everything up spick and span. Baelor Breakspear was a complete Mary Sue, and, although he was killed off, it was clear that had he taken the throne he'd have been the Best King Evar. It's not hard to see similar implications about the promise of Rhaegar, his boobery regarding Lyanna notwithstanding. We even have Tywin, who while he's basically a villain was a great Hand of the King and ran the kingdom near-perfectly until Aerys sacked him out of jealousy.

So I think it's kind of up in the air. We can read the moral as "this is a terrible system of government, and the 'good king' who can manage it well is an impossibility" or the related one of "the 'good king' doesn't exist but people think he has done and will again and thus tolerate this terrible system of government", but it could also be "this system needs a 'good king' to manage it, but there isn't one right now, so everything's terrible". I think it's another thing we might have to wait until the end of the series to pass final judgment on.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Recommended essay: Revolt From Below – The Impact of the Smallfolk on the Game of Thrones (https://racefortheironthrone.wordpress.com/2016/10/27/rftit-basement-tapes-revolt-from-below/), by Steven Attewell. (It's about ASOIAF, not the show.) It identifies all the ways we've seen some political agency from the lower classes - during events in the books, and earlier in history - and makes note of historical parallels in the real world. Great stuff, and it touches on many of the things discussed here (feudalism, monarchy, and so on).

[An Enemy Spy]

I don't think Martin set out to put a central narrative into the story, but I do think that any good story generates it's own themes organically and lets the reader take meaning from them. I don't have my books on me right now, but I went through the quotes sections on Goodreads and found a whole bunch that tie into themes of morality and rulership. None of these should be taken as the author speaking directly to the reader, and many are from characters with somewhat negative worldviews. I still think they're worth thinking about though.

“The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die.”

“What is honor compared to a woman's love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms . . . or the memory of a brother's smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy.”

“A bruise is a lesson... and each lesson makes us better.”

“The common people pray for rain, healthy children and a summer that never ends. It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace.”

“I swear to you, sitting a throne is a thousand times harder than winning one.”

“A lord must learn that sometimes words can accomplish what swords cannot.”

“Why is it always the innocents who suffer most, when you high lords play your game of thrones?”

“People often claim to hunger for truth, but seldom like the taste when it's served up.”

“Power resides only where men believe it resides. [...] A shadow on the wall, yet shadows can kill. And ofttimes a very small man can cast a very large shadow.”

“So many vows... they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It’s too much. No matter what you do, you’re forsaking one vow or the other.”

“He who hurries through life hurries to his grave.”

“Crowns do queer things to the heads beneath them.”

“A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward.”

“True knights protect the weak.”
He snorted. “There are no true knights, no more than there are gods. If you can’t protect yourself, die and get out of the way of those who can. Sharp steel and strong arms rule this world, don’t ever believe any different.”
Sansa backed away from him. “You’re awful.”
“I’m honest. It’s the world that’s awful.”

“Was there ever a war where only one side bled?”

“Great wrongs have been done you, but the past is dust. The future may yet be won ..”

“Perhaps that is the secret. It is not what we do, so much as why we do it.”

“Robert wanted to be loved. My brother Tyrion has the same disease. Do you want to be loved, Sansa?”
“Everyone wants to be loved.”
“I see flowering hasn’t made you any brighter,” said Cersei. “Sansa, permit me to share a bit of womanly wisdom with you on this very
special day. Love is poison. A sweet poison, yes, but it will kill you all the same.”

“love was a surer route to the people's loyalty than fear”

“Robert was never the same after he put on that crown. Some men are like swords, made for fighting. Hang them up and they go to rust.”

“The wide world is full of people wanting help, Jon. Would that some could find the courage to help themselves.

“Just as if I was one of those true knights you love so well, yes. What do you think a knight is for, girl? You think it's all taking favours from ladies and looking fine in gold plate? Knights are for killing...I killed my first man at twelve. I've lost count of how many I've killed since then. High lords with old names, fat rich men dressed in velvet, knights puffed up like bladders with their honours, yes, and women and children too - they're all meat, and I'm the butcher. Let them have their lands and their gods and their gold. Let them have their sers.' Sandor Clegane spat at her feet to show what he thought of that. 'So long as I have this,' he said, lifting the sword from her throat, 'there's no man on earth I need fear.”

“Knights die in battle,” Catelyn reminded her. Brienne looked at her with those blue and beautiful eyes. “As ladies die in childbed. No one sings songs about them.”

“Sweet smells are sometimes used to cover foul ones.”

“It is better to be seen as cruel than foolish.”

“That’s no law, just a sword. Happens I got one too.”

“When a pirate grows rich enough, they make him a prince.”

“A grey man,” she said. “Neither white nor black, but partaking of both. Is that what you are, Ser Davos?”
“What if I am? It seems to me that most men are grey.”
“If half of an onion is black with rot, it is a rotten onion. A man is good, or he is evil.”

“Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died.”

“The greatest fools are ofttimes more clever than the men who laugh at them.”

“We look up at the same stars and see such different things.”

“It all goes back and back," Tyrion thought, "to our mothers and fathers and theirs before them. We are puppets dancing on the strings of those who came before us, and one day our own children will take up our strings and dance in our steads.”

“They are children, Sansa thought. They are silly little girls, even Elinor. They’ve never seen a battle, they’ve never seen a man die, they know nothing. Their dreams were full of songs and stories, the way hers had been before Joffrey cut her fathers head off. Sansa pitied them. Sansa envied them.”

“Sometimes I think everyone is just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending is how you get brave, I don't know.”

“There is a savage beast in every man, and when you hand that man a sword or spear and send him forth to war, the beast stirs.”

“If ice can burn, then love and hate can mate.”

“And any man who must say 'I am king' is no true king at all.”

“The singers make much of kings who die valiantly in battle, but your life is worth more than a song.”

“Explain to me why it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner.”

“The gods made the earth for all men t' share. Only when the kings come with their crowns and steel swords, they claimed it was all theirs. "My trees," they said, "you can't eat them apples. My stream, you can't fish here. My wood, you're not t' hunt. My earth, my water, my castle, my daughter, keep your hands away or I'll chop 'em off, but maybe if you kneel t' me I'll let you have a sniff." You call us thieves, but at least a thief has t' be brave and clever and quick. A kneeler only has t' kneel.”

“In King’s Landing, there are two sorts of people. The players and the pieces… Every man’s a piece to start with, and every maid as well. Even some who think they are players."

“Gods be good, why would any man ever want to be king? When everyone was shouting King in the North, King in the North, I told myself ... swore to myself ... that I would be a good king, as honorable as Father, strong, just, loyal to my friends and brave when I faced my enemies ... now I can't even tell one from the other.”

“Surprisingly, Stannis smiled at that. “You’re bold enough to be a Stark. Yes, I should have come sooner. If not for my Hand, I might not have come at all. Lord Seaworth is a man of humble birth, but he reminded me of my duty, when all I could think of was my rights. I had the cart before the horse, Davos said. I was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when I should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne.”

“Why do the Gods make kings and queens if not to protect the ones who can't protect themselves?”

“If walls could keep us small, peasants would all be tiny and kings as large as giants," said Ser Jorah. "I've seen huge men born in hovels, and dwarfs who dwelt in castles.”

“Lem glowered. "Your lion friends ride into some village, take all the food and every coin they find, and call it foraging. the wolves as well, so why not us? no one robbed you, dog. You just been good and foraged.”

“Not everyone who spoke to you friendly was really your friend.”

“A queen must listen to all,” she reminded him. “The highborn and the low, the strong and the weak, the noble and the venal. One voice may speak you false, but in many there is always truth to be found.”

“He was not born wealthy. In the world as I have seen it, no man grows rich by kindness.”

“You were the one who taught me that a good threat is often more telling than a blow.”

“It’s dangerous being free, but most come to like the taste o’ it.”

“I prefer my history dead. Dead history is writ in ink, the living sort in blood.”

“History is a wheel, for the nature of man is fundamentally unchanging. What has happened before will perforce happen again.”

“Do you want to die old and craven in your bed?" "How else? Though not till I'm done reading.”

“War seems like a fine adventure, the greatest most of them will ever know. Then they get a taste of battle.
For some, that one taste is enough to break them. Others go on for years, until they lose count of all the battles they have fought in, but even a man who has survived a hundred fights can break in his hundred-and-first. Brothers watch their brothers die, fathers lose their sons, friends see their friends trying to hold their entrails in after they’ve been gutted by an axe.
They see the lord who led them there cut down, and some other lord shouts that they are his now, They take the wound, and when that’s still half-healed they take another. There is never enough to eat, their shoes fall to pieces from marching, their clothes are torn and rotting, and half of them are ****ting in their breeches from drinking bad water.
If they want new boots or a warmer cloak or maybe a rusted iron half helm, they need to take them from a corpse, and before long they are stealing from the living too, from the small folk whose land they’re fighting in, men very like the men they used to be. They slaughter their sheep and steal their chickens, and from there it’s just a short step to carrying off their daughters too. And one day they look around and realize all their friends and kin are gone, that they are fighting beside strangers beneath a banner that they hardly recognize. They don’t know where they are or how to get back home and the lord they’re fighting for does not know their names, yet here he comes, shouting for them to form up, to make a line with their spears and scythes and sharpened hoes, to stand their ground. And the knights come down on them, faceless men clad in all steel, and the iron thunder of their charge seems to fill the world.
And the man breaks.”

“We were king’s men, knights, and heroes . . . but some knights are dark and full of terror, my lady. War makes monsters of us all.”
“Are you saying you are monsters?”
“I am saying we are human. You are not the only one with wounds, Lady Brienne”

“Sometimes there is no happy choice, Sam, only one less grievous than the others."

“There is no shame in loving. If your septons say there is, your seven gods must be demons. In the isles we know better. Our gods gave us legs to run with, noses to smell with, hands to touch and feel. What mad cruel god would give a man eyes and tell him he must forever keep them shut, and never look at all the beauty in the world? Only a monster god, a demon of the darkness.”

“Anger was better than tears, better than grief, better than guilt.”

“No fight is hopeless till it has been fought.”

“A sweet face oft hides a sinner's heart.”

“The choice is yours, brother. Live a thrall or die a king. Do you dare to fly? Unless you take the leap, you’ll never know."

“If you would wed, wed. If not, take your pleasure where you find it. There's little enough of it in this world."

“No one who wears a crown is ever safe.”

“The world is full of horrors, Tommen. You can fight them, or laugh at them, or look without seeing...”

“How much can a crown be worth, when a crow can dine upon a king?”

“Allow me to give my lord one last piece of counsel," the old man had said, "the same counsel I once gave my brother when we parted for the last time. He was three-and-thirty when the Great Council chose him to mount the Iron Throne. A man grown with sons of his own, yet in some ways still a boy. Egg had an innocence to him, a sweetness we all loved. Kill the boy within you, I told him the day I took ship for the Wall. It takes a man to rule. An Aegon, not an Egg. Kill the boy and let the man be born." The old man felt Jon's face. "You are half the age that Egg was, and your own burden is crueler one, I fear. You will have little joy of your command, but I think you have the strength in you to do the things that must be done. Kill the boy, Jon Snow. Winter is almost upon us. Kill the boy and let the man be born.”

“Perhaps I cannot make my people good, she told herself, but I should at least try to make them a little less bad.”

“The past remains the past. We can learn from it, but we cannot change it.”

“Free folk don't follow names, or little cloth animals sewn on a tunic," the King-Beyond-the-Wall had told him. "They won't dance for coins, they don't care how your style yourself or what that chain of office means or who your grandsire was. They follow strength. They follow the man.”

“Summer friends will melt away like summer snows, but winter friends are friends forever.”

“When treating with liars, even an honest man must lie.”

“A crown should not sit easy on the head.”

“An honest kiss, a little kindness, everyone deserves that much, however big or small.”

“Barristan Semly was not a bookish man, but he had often glanced through the pages of the White Book, where the deeds of his predecessors had been recorded. Some had been heroes, some weaklings, knaves, or cravens. Most were only men - quicker and stronger than most, more skilled with sword and shield, but still prey to pride, ambition, lust, love, anger, jealousy, greed for gold, hunger for power, and all the other failing that afflicted lesser mortals. The best of them overcame their flaws, did their duty, and died with their swords in their hands. The worst ...
The worst were those who played the game of thrones.”

“A lord may love the men that he commands, but he cannot be a friend to them. One day he may need to sit in judgement on them, or send them forth to die.”

“Silver’s sweet and gold’s our mother, but once you’re dead they’re worth less than that last **** you take as you lie dying.”

“The most insidious thing about bondage was how easy it was to grow accustomed to it.”

“I am the blood of the dragon, she thought. If they are monsters, so am I.”

“Many good men have been bad kings, Maester Aemon used to say, and some bad men have been good kings.”

“A man should cling to hope.”

“All kings must be butchers or meat.”

“Much that may seem evil can be good.”

“So long as men remember the wrongs done to their forebears, no peace will ever last.”

“Free folk and kneelers are more alike than not, Jon Snow. Men are men and women women, no matter which side of the Wall we were born on. Good men and bad, heroes and villains, men of honor, liars, cravens, brutes … we have plenty, as do you.”

“In the end a gentle heart may be worth more than pride or valor.”

“Or do you mean to rule over a realm of seals and otters?”
She gave a rueful laugh. “Otters might be easier to rule than men, I grant you. And seals are smarter.”

“When the choice is debt or death, best borrow.”

[factotum]

I've been thinking about this "might makes right" idea for deciding the succession to the rulership, and I don't think it's as clear-cut as some people say it is. Robert Baratheon took the throne by force, true, but it's unclear if he would have had as much support as he did if he didn't have that handy Targaryen grandmother to legitimise his claim. It's also notable that, even after he's been on the throne for more than a decade, he considers his position to be so tenuous that he's willing to authorise the assassination of a fourteen-year-old girl on the other side of the world for fear his lords will desert him for her if she ever comes west.

On top of that, Sansa is considered an important player in the game of thrones purely because, with her legitimate brothers all apparently dead, she is the rightful inheritor of Winterfell and the North. Tywin married Tyrion to her for that reason, and Littlefinger took her away from King's Landing for the same reason. Why would they have bothered if they could just take the North by force? Because they know that doesn't actually work--you need someone in command who will keep the loyalty of the northern lords, and neither Roose nor Ramsay Bolton are that, not after what they did at the Red Wedding.

[LokeyITP]

Even Littlefinger didn't sell it that soft :) It's a pretty safe bet that the Boltons won't be popular rulers and that it'll be easy enough to get an army under a Stark banner and that the North will be weakened post-winter, but not guaranteed. Military conquest of the North is still hard because it's the big, frozen, spread-out North too...

[Gnoman]

I've been thinking about this "might makes right" idea for deciding the succession to the rulership, and I don't think it's as clear-cut as some people say it is. Robert Baratheon took the throne by force, true, but it's unclear if he would have had as much support as he did if he didn't have that handy Targaryen grandmother to legitimise his claim. It's also notable that, even after he's been on the throne for more than a decade, he considers his position to be so tenuous that he's willing to authorise the assassination of a fourteen-year-old girl on the other side of the world for fear his lords will desert him for her if she ever comes west.

The fact that the king Robert deposed was generally awful, and apparently gave Robert a valid reason for his rebellion (and Stark an excellent reason to back him) probably helped a lot as well. If he'd rebelled against someone who'd earned the title of Aerys the Wise instead of one justly named Mad King Aerys, his succession would probably not have stood up.

[DomaDoma]

Seems only book one is currently available at the library. Fortunately, that will suffice for today:

LESSON I: WESTEROSI MAXIMS TO LIVE BY

There are four major reasons to be absorbed with A Song of Ice and Fire, and they are as follows:

1) Spectatorial interest in who winds up on the Iron Throne.
2) The sort of speculative/referential nerding-out seen on GiantITP.
3) The skin. (As I'm a woman, no one tells me this to my face, but you have to assume.)

But we will concentrate on the fourth reason:

4) Game of Thrones informs people's philosophy.

In that capacity, it emphatically does not refer to the kind of philosophy seen here:


BRAN: Robb says the man died bravely, but Jon says he was afraid.
EDDARD: What do you think?
BRAN: Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?
EDDARD: That is the only time a man can be brave.

A wise and honorable maxim. But it's ever so trite, isn't it? As such, it will be shunted away very, very quickly. Bran will find inspiration from it in a dream sequence which, like many false leads in the first book, promises to be fruitful for the plot. But afterward, he will pay the maxim no more heed than anyone else, and (in keeping with Mr. Martin's general fondness for having his characters stumble around in the dark until it's too late) the dream, far from preparing him against the long winter, will fill him with bitterness because he cannot, literally, fly.

And as for anyone else, the idea of courage under fire comes to precious little. Mr. Martin's stance, as we will see, is that death is the thing to avoid, and never mind any quality of character.

I offer as demonstration the scene in Game of Thrones which best exemplifies courage in the face of stark raving terror, and which refers to probably the bravest death in the series:


"Fear cuts deeper than swords," [Arya] said aloud, but it was no good pretending to be a water dancer, Syrio had been a water dancer and the white knight had probably killed him...

[...]

One of the corpses was Desmond, who'd shown her his longsword and promised to protect her father. Close to him was a dead man in the red cloak and lion-crest helm of the Lannisters. Only one, though. Every northerner is worth ten of these southron swords, Desmond had told her. "You liar!" she said, kicking his body in a sudden fury.

The actual moral to this story, of course, winds up being:


Stick them with the pointy end.

And boy, does Arya ever take that one to heart.

Here are some other classics for your philosophical ASoIaF fans, severely vindicated in the story as a whole:


See what life is worth, when all the rest is gone.



The things we love destroy us every time, lad.
[...]
The hard truths are the ones to hold tight.


LITTLEFINGER: Life is not a song, sweetling. Someday you may learn that, to your sorrow.

Littlefinger is specifically cited because he's saying this to Sansa, which you'd think would undermine his whole scheme if she actually came away edified. He's the smartest character to prefer cynical pontification to the furtherance of his personal aims, but far and away not the only one.

And, of course - the expansion on the context here will be very important as we proceed -



CERSEI: You should have taken the realm for yourself. It was there for the taking. Jaime tole me how you found him on the Iron Throne the day King's Landing fell, and made him yield it up. All you needed was to climb those steps, and sit. Such a sad mistake.
EDDARD: I have made more mistakes than you can possibly imagine, but that was not one of them.
CERSEI: Oh, but it was, my lord. When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.

Keep in mind here that, in this moment, Ned was quite explicitly a sworn subordinate to the guy who ended up being king.

Note also that middle ground is really quite handy when it comes to giving people incentive to surrender - yet, throughout the story, we will find that anyone who actually profers it is basically handing their enemies the dagger for their backs.

I had been searching and searching for the really central exchange of Mr. Martin's thesis, the one between Sandor and Sansa where they go on at length about the distinction between a sellsword and a true knight. It turns out it's from A Clash of Kings, but let's get what piecemeal we can from the Internet:



What do you think a knight is for, girl? You think it's all taking favours from ladies and looking fine in gold plate? Knights are for killing.

Well, once you've stripped away everything fair to look on and left the grinning skeleton beneath - a thing Mr. Martin is very fond of doing - a knight is a battle-trained middle manager between the lords and the peasants. (In which vein much more later.) "For killing" is a bit of an overstatement, especially in the way Sandor Clegane means it, describing his career as a sellsword (which almost certainly pales in comparison to his brother's career as a knight):


I killed my first man at twelve. I've lost count of how many I've killed since then. High lords with old names, fat rich men dressed in velvet, knights puffed up like bladders with their honours, yes, and women and children too - they're all meat, and I'm the butcher.

In conclusion:



SANSA: True knights protect the weak.
SANDOR: There are no true knights, no more than there are gods. If you can’t protect yourself, die and get out of the way of those who can. Sharp steel and strong arms rule this world, don’t ever believe any different.
SANSA: You're awful.
SANDOR: I'm honest. It’s the world that’s awful.

Well, given the quote above this one, it's not exactly an either/or, is it? Sandor is far from not awful; he's just conforming to the world, which is awful. And he's absolutely the sage in this particular conversation.

The perfect rejoinder, I fear, comes from a much less talented writer:



DININ [having just cheerfully related his murder of his elder brother in the middle of a naked power-grab of a battle]: The world is difficult.
DRIZZT: We make it so.

[Knaight]

Well, once you've stripped away everything fair to look on and left the grinning skeleton beneath - a thing Mr. Martin is very fond of doing - a knight is a battle-trained middle manager between the lords and the peasants.

Exactly. The institution of knighthood represents the concentration of military force in the hands of the lower nobility and away from the peasants - high enough to have something to lose should a knight try to take power, low enough to operate as subordinate shock troops for the people with real power. Knights are a barrier between the common people and a society in which they have the sorts of rights and power that is rightfully theirs, and the fantasy trope of the good knight in other works obscures that. The problem isn't that the knights are bad people, and not all the knights in ASOIF are bad people, the problem is that the knights exist at all as a defined caste. Everything fair to look on consists mostly of specious pro-knight propoganda.

Getting to Sandor Clegane specifically - his disdain for knights comes more than a little from Gregor being knighted. And why was Gregor knighted? Why was this particular person, demonstrably rapaciously violent, demonstrably cruel for the sake of cruelty, demonstrably monstrous, given a knighthood? Why did the powers that be look upon this person and decide that he should get a bunch of combat training, a bunch of social influence, and an army to run? He had the right last name, and he's useful for running a terror campaign against the peasantry that might otherwise revolt. I'm not particularly fond of modern military institutions as a whole, but just about all of them would have screened this guy out psychologically. Sandor has a personal view of the inherent danger in the existence of a knightly caste, and even from his position as someone who would normally be in the cast he finds reason to hate it.

That quote and the "King Bread" incident are two of the biggest points of evidence in favor of ASoiF as a criticism of the genre. The nobles squabble, and as the power structure that people are accustomed to it's accepted among the peasantry; they even affiliate themselves with various noble factions. They find unity in wanting to eat, a simple thing denied to them by the nobles as a whole because the entire system of nobility is inherently rotten. So much fantasy has the good king up against the bad king, or the good knight working against the bad knight, or even the people as a whole trying to throw off the bad king or bad baron or bad knight so that the good king or good baron or good knight can take their place. That doesn't work in ASoiF, because the problem isn't that the system of nobility, which is fine as a system, is currently causing harm because the person in power shouldn't be there and can thus be fixed if a new person is put in that position. In ASoiF, the position of power shouldn't be there, and putting a better person in said position is damage control at best.

[Aedilred]

3) The skin. (As I'm a woman, no one tells me this to my face, but you have to assume.)

But we will concentrate on the fourth reason:

TV show? Maybe. Books? Doubt it. I don't think the early books are significantly more sex-filled than any other fantasy stories, really, and Martin's sex scenes are infamously horrible when he actually describes them in detail. They're the opposite of titillating. Although from comments he's made about it I don't think that's intentional, which is rather troubling in itself.

[Shadow of the Sun]

There are four major reasons to be absorbed with A Song of Ice and Fire, and they are as follows:

1) Spectatorial interest in who winds up on the Iron Throne.
2) The sort of speculative/referential nerding-out seen on GiantITP.
3) The skin. (As I'm a woman, no one tells me this to my face, but you have to assume.)

But we will concentrate on the fourth reason:

4) Game of Thrones informs people's philosophy.

I have a decent chunk of contention with these points - specifically, that trying to categorise why people like a series into four basic categories like that is incredibly presumptive. If I asked 100 different people why they like A Song of Ice and Fire - or any work of art - I'd expect a wildly disparate list of reasons as to why they enjoy it.

Further, the contention that someone enjoys a work because it informs their philosophy ignores the fact that people can entertain ideas without accepting their premises.

[factotum]

I don't think the early books are significantly more sex-filled than any other fantasy stories, really

I'm struggling to actually remember any sex scenes, to be honest with you, which goes to show how memorable they are. About the only one that comes to mind is Cersei and Jaime at Winterfell, which is plot-important and is barely described at all. I certainly don't think they're as prevalent in the books as Doma Doma does, and I haven't seen most of the TV series so I can't judge the differences there.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Martin's sex scenes are infamously horrible when he actually describes them in detail. They're the opposite of titillating.

They really, really are. I don't think I've ever read worse.

As an (on-topic!) side, I think it's a mistake to take ASoIaF as a morality tale. That isn't why it was written and it's not how most people interpret it, as far as I'm aware.

[Eldan]

I'm struggling to actually remember any sex scenes, to be honest with you, which goes to show how memorable they are. About the only one that comes to mind is Cersei and Jaime at Winterfell, which is plot-important and is barely described at all. I certainly don't think they're as prevalent in the books as Doma Doma does, and I haven't seen most of the TV series so I can't judge the differences there.

There's the odd scene where someone visits a prostitute. I don't think they were in much detail?

[Shadow of the Sun]

There are a bunch of sex scenes or references to them. I think in order it goes... Catelyn reminiscing immediately after sexual relations, Bran seeing Jaime and Cersei, Daenerys and Drogo and the general prevalence of sex in the Dothraki culture... after that a bunch of stuff with Tyrion... more Dothraki and so on, and this is only the first book.

GRRM is incredibly bad at making sex actually sexy though. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but I'm hoping it's intentional.

[Misereor]

I've spent a lot of time since then mulling over what was so deeply wrong about those books, but I haven't actually read them since. Now, I will have to, and finish book five besides. The books are deeply, acerbically cynical. The moral they quite explicitly bear is this: The world is awful. Be awful yourself, and at least it won't hurt so badly.

Not really.

There is a quite obvious similarity between A Song of Ice and Fire and The Walking Dead, in that both series portray "what qualities to posses in a crappy situation if you want to live" scenarios, reminiscent of Machiavelli. Ned may be the first to die, and while it could be a possibility that it was because he was a decent individual, and it can certainly be said that it provides shock value, in retrospect it seems a lot more likely that it was because in spite of his good qualities, he was vulnerable to deception. Rob could fight but was vulnerable to manipulation. Tywin could manipulate and deceive, but was vulnerable to his own lack of humanity. Stannis is strong like iron, but vulnerable to his own inability to bend. And so on and so forth.

One might use a biblical reference and say that it rains on the good and the wicked alike, but in this case I much prefer to look to Westeros for religious inspiration.
The lesson Martin seems to want to teach, is that a ruler needs to have the traits of all of the Seven. If you do not, then good or bad, you're going down.


There are another couple of angles to consider, specifically regarding viewpoints.

Did you notice how everyone hated Cersei in the beginning, but as she started getting chapters (or scenes in the tv show) through her point of view, some people started to sympathize with her and even cheer for her when she pulled something off? As Martin is hardly the first to have said, "everyone is the hero in their own story", and it would appear that part of the audience were so used to this, that simply because they identified with what must be objectively considered a horrible human being, they became vulnerable to her.

Another point of interest is that people are used to only the survivors' story being told. It is a common thing in litterature and film/tv, that only the viewpoints of those people the author knows are going to make it to the end of the book/film are considered. Whenever someone dies, they were meant to die, and they were pretty unimportant except as vehicles for advancing the plot for the main characters. But reality doesn't work like that (Narcissism does, but that is another discussion). The world is full of examples of interesting and important people who died before their stories were complete. That doesn't make them merely bylines in someones else's tale. To reduce them to such would be the real cynicism.

In my opinion Martin should get points for doing what he does to these characters. Giving their full impact provides the opportunity to tell a better and more coherent story.
And to return to the first point, so does avoiding Mary Sue characters, who the audience know are going to be alright, because they possess classical hero traits.

[Aedilred]

There are a bunch of sex scenes or references to them. I think in order it goes... Catelyn reminiscing immediately after sexual relations, Bran seeing Jaime and Cersei, Daenerys and Drogo and the general prevalence of sex in the Dothraki culture... after that a bunch of stuff with Tyrion... more Dothraki and so on, and this is only the first book.

GRRM is incredibly bad at making sex actually sexy though. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but I'm hoping it's intentional.
Yeah, there is sex in the early books, although it tends to be described in less detail than he does in some of the later ones. But I think if you take the depictions of sex in A Game of Thrones and A Clash of Kings at least, take into account the number of pages, and then compare them to the rest of the genre I don't think you'd find that sex was more prevalent than is average for fantasy.

So I don't think the "people are reading it for the sex" assertion is fair unless you're going to level it at readers of fantasy as a whole. I guess you could try to argue that the sex is a reason that people who think they don't like fantasy because there's no sex in The Lord of the Rings have been drawn into it... but again I think that's more of a TV show thing anyway.



Did you notice how everyone hated Cersei in the beginning, but as she started getting chapters (or scenes in the tv show) through her point of view, some people started to sympathize with her and even cheer for her when she pulled something off? As Martin is hardly the first to have said, "everyone is the hero in their own story", and it would appear that part of the audience were so used to this, that simply because they identified with what must be objectively considered a horrible human being, they became vulnerable to her.

If anything, most of the people I've spoken to about it started sympathising with Cersei less since she got her own PoV chapters. That she thinks she's the heroine just goes to show (for those people and for me) how self-unaware, deranged and narcissistic she is.

I agree otherwise, though.

[Shadow of the Sun]

I wish we'd gotten Cersei POV chapters before she decided to do a kickflip McTwist off of the deep end. I think she's one of the most annoying characters whose POVs I've willingly read.

Jaime is a much better example of someone who was very hated and has become a fan-favourite, though.

[Ninja_Prawn]

If anything, most of the people I've spoken to about it started sympathising with Cersei less since she got her own PoV chapters. That she thinks she's the heroine just goes to show (for those people and for me) how self-unaware, deranged and narcissistic she is.

This has been my experience, for sure. I think Misereor might be getting insane monster Cersei Lannister confused with relatable tiger mom Carol Lannister. Out of all the many complaints I have with the show, the redesign of the Lannister twins is one of the biggest.

[factotum]

Jaime is a much better example of someone who was very hated and has become a fan-favourite, though.

That's because we start out seeing his every bad side--he killed the King he was sworn to protect, he tried to kill Bran to keep his tryst with Cersei secret, and he was always seen as extremely arrogant. It's only when we started seeing stuff from his POV that we learned more of his character and what makes him tick. Cersei, on the other hand, is only shown up to be worse when we see stuff from her POV--when you see what she's doing then she kind of looks like a master manipulator, like her father, but when you see the reasons she does those things you start to realise she's an idiot who does whatever she can to destroy the most immediate threat without thinking through the consequences.

Tyrion is another character who's got less relatable as the books have gone on, IMHO. In the early books he seemed to be just doing his best to deal with the situations he was getting dumped in, and doing a pretty good job of it; however, since his imprisonment there's been a malicious aspect to his actions that wasn't there before. I hope that's a temporary change, because I like the earlier Tyrion much more than I do the current one.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Tyrion is another character who's got less relatable as the books have gone on, IMHO. In the early books he seemed to be just doing his best to deal with the situations he was getting dumped in, and doing a pretty good job of it; however, since his imprisonment there's been a malicious aspect to his actions that wasn't there before. I hope that's a temporary change, because I like the earlier Tyrion much more than I do the current one.

Yeah, I think it's intended as a fall from which he will later be redeemed. It looks like, broadly speaking, he is consciously choosing to play up the 'twisted monkey-demon' act, because he doesn't think anyone will ever love the real him. So it's entirely believable that he might see the error in that and put a stop to it.

[Murk]

That's because we start out seeing his every bad side--he killed the King he was sworn to protect, he tried to kill Bran to keep his tryst with Cersei secret, and he was always seen as extremely arrogant. It's only when we started seeing stuff from his POV that we learned more of his character and what makes him tick.

Doesn't that kind of support the OP's conclusion, though?
We have a character who pushes children out of windows, which, y'know, is a horrible thing. However, later we get to hear that it was the world, and the pressure, and his childhood, and expectations, simply said: the way the world works, that made him do it.
And readers love him.
And not even in a "love to hate" way. I truly felt as if the narrative was written like that with the purpose of making people like Jaime. We were meant to sympathise with a child murderer.

That seems to me to align quite well with the arguments the OP is making here: time and time again we are reminded that doing horrible things (like murdering children) is just the way the world works, and that you can still like characters who do so. After all, it wasn't their personality per se, but more just how horrible the world is.

[Gnoman]

The thing about Jaime that I think everybody gets wrong deals with honor. It seems pretty clear that his apparent contempt for the subject is a facade, and he is really deeply wounded by the title of Kingslayer that he is branded with, and the distaste that folks like Eddard Stark treat him with is really quite painful. He wears the armor of contempt as a shield against such attacks, and he's buoyed by the certain knowledge that he did the right thing, but the fact that every "worthy" person except Cersei treats him like a nasty thing is almost certainly part of why he clings so tightly to her affections, and why he pulls back so quickly when he starts to see her as the contemptible thing she is. This is also probably part of why he clings so tightly to the Kingsguard - it remains a post of honor, and even his detractors respect it.

[Dienekes]

Doesn't that kind of support the OP's conclusion, though?
We have a character who pushes children out of windows, which, y'know, is a horrible thing. However, later we get to hear that it was the world, and the pressure, and his childhood, and expectations, simply said: the way the world works, that made him do it.
And readers love him.
And not even in a "love to hate" way. I truly felt as if the narrative was written like that with the purpose of making people like Jaime. We were meant to sympathise with a child murderer.

That seems to me to align quite well with the arguments the OP is making here: time and time again we are reminded that doing horrible things (like murdering children) is just the way the world works, and that you can still like characters who do so. After all, it wasn't their personality per se, but more just how horrible the world is.

Honestly? While I personally never liked Jaime, I think you're missing an important part of his story. I don't think people sympathize with him for screwing his own sister, or pushing a kid out of a window. They sympathize because they think he's trying to do better. He is taking his oath to Catelyn very seriously. He is cutting off his ties with his leech of a sister. He rescued his falsely accused brother. He is trying to stop the violence in the Riverlands as peacefully as he can, even by besmirching his own name to do it.

Though he does also show the inherent problems with a honor based "feudal" society, by his interactions with Aerys. Are we, the reader, supposed to praise him for breaking the social contract to remove a homicidal and corrupt official, or reject him because he broke the honor based social contract in the first place? And different characters react differently to this. Brienne, for example, seems to respect him for it (eventually), while Ned does not.

Admittedly, part of that may have been because the idiot, Jaime, refused to tell anyone that Aerys was planning on burning down all of King's Landing.


The other interesting bit about the cynicism, I would say, was that taking Sandor Clegane by what he says at face value, seems strange to me. Considering, when push comes to shove he seems to try to be honorable. Generally being nice to Sansa, even offering to rescue her (in admittedly the creepiest way possible), and continuing to take care of Arya, rescuing her repeatedly, far after she was of any actual use to him. Really, the only times we see Sandor behave like he talks were: 1) The killing of Mycah, which, considering that when he was sent to go do it all he was told was that the butcher's boy attacked Joffrey, makes sense, if not actually being a forgivable reason. 2) The abandoning of his post when the Blackwater burned. 3) Paying a ferryman with the Brotherhood's promissory note.

Which I think is interesting, he's one of the biggest cynics in the setting spouting nihilism with every other breathe, but he's almost as often not living up to his words.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Which I think is interesting, he's one of the biggest cynics in the setting spouting nihilism with every other breathe, but he's almost as often not living up to his words.

Sandor is like a 15-year-old that just discovered Nietzsche and decided that was all he ever needed. He's angry at the world (especially his father), disillusioned with Romantic idealism and thinks being a nihilistic emo kid makes him smarter than everyone else who still 'believes the lie'. We're not supposed to take him seriously.

I agree that Jaime comes out looking good because he is making an honest effort to be a better person. And he'll probably go out in a heroic blaze of glory, which always helps.

[Legato Endless]

Doesn't that kind of support the OP's conclusion, though?

No.


We have a character who pushes children out of windows, which, y'know, is a horrible thing.

Yes.


However, later we get to hear that it was the world, and the pressure, and his childhood, and expectations, simply said: the way the world works, that made him do it.

The narrative never implies anything forced Jaime to do anything. I can't recall any point where there's anything sympathetic implied by the story about his attempted murder. The closest is the threat to Jaime's family Bran's discovery poses, and even then it's never framed as something he had any justification for.


I truly felt as if the narrative was written like that with the purpose of making people like Jaime. We were meant to sympathise with a child murderer.

Yes. Child murderers are, shockingly, also people. And may have likeable aspects to them. Most people aren't Snidley Whiplash. Even those who do hideously deplorable things.

Sympathetic /= Morally Absolved



That seems to me to align quite well with the arguments the OP is making here: time and time again we are reminded that doing horrible things (like murdering children) is just the way the world works, and that you can still like characters who do so. After all, it wasn't their personality per se, but more just how horrible the world is.
[/QUOTE]

No. The major event Jaime is afforded moral justification for worldly pressure is with the Kingsguard. Because every member of the guard is on some level a hypocritical failure. Jaime just admits the oath is impossible because no matter how upright you are when the oath contradicts itself something will have to break.

[lord_khaine]

That's because we start out seeing his every bad side--he killed the King he was sworn to protect

Thats actually one of the things that made him cool in my eyes. He did the right thing despite knowing he would be hated for it, and killed the mad king before he had a chance to kill i dont know how many people.

[Dienekes]

Thats actually one of the things that made him cool in my eyes. He did the right thing despite knowing he would be hated for it, and killed the mad king before he had a chance to kill i dont know how many people.

Yes but we the reader don't know that Aerys was going to blow everyone up until his chapter.

The way it's presented in book 1 was Jaime was trying to save his own skin or even had it all planned out with his father.

[lord_khaine]

mhm.. can be.. is to long since i recall the order of things.

[Lethologica]

And, of course - the expansion on the context here will be very important as we proceed -

CERSEI: You should have taken the realm for yourself. It was there for the taking. Jaime told me how you found him on the Iron Throne the day King's Landing fell, and made him yield it up. All you needed was to climb those steps, and sit. Such a sad mistake.
EDDARD: I have made more mistakes than you can possibly imagine, but that was not one of them.
CERSEI: Oh, but it was, my lord. When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.
Keep in mind here that, in this moment, Ned was quite explicitly a sworn subordinate to the guy who ended up being king.

Note also that middle ground is really quite handy when it comes to giving people incentive to surrender - yet, throughout the story, we will find that anyone who actually profers it is basically handing their enemies the dagger for their backs.
This is an interesting citation, because Ned is clearly correct: claiming the throne would have been a miserable mistake. Cersei cannot see it because she is ambitious, and just clever enough to be incredibly stupid. What we've learned in this exchange is Cersei's view on the game of thrones, not GRRM's moral lesson on how the game should be played (or, for that matter, whether it should be played).

[Bicorn]

Which I think is interesting, he's one of the biggest cynics in the setting spouting nihilism with every other breathe, but he's almost as often not living up to his words.

http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2013-06-17.jpg

[Shadow of the Sun]

This is an interesting citation, because Ned is clearly correct: claiming the throne would have been a miserable mistake. Cersei cannot see it because she is ambitious, and just clever enough to be incredibly stupid. What we've learned in this exchange is Cersei's view on the game of thrones, not GRRM's moral lesson on how the game should be played (or, for that matter, whether it should be played).

Frankly speaking, if anyone is attempting to find moral lessons in something that Cersei says they're missing the point. Cersei is walking around with a sign above her head that reads in bold font "DON'T BE THIS IDIOT."

[Aedilred]

Doesn't that kind of support the OP's conclusion, though?
We have a character who pushes children out of windows, which, y'know, is a horrible thing. However, later we get to hear that it was the world, and the pressure, and his childhood, and expectations, simply said: the way the world works, that made him do it.
And readers love him.
And not even in a "love to hate" way. I truly felt as if the narrative was written like that with the purpose of making people like Jaime. We were meant to sympathise with a child murderer.

That seems to me to align quite well with the arguments the OP is making here: time and time again we are reminded that doing horrible things (like murdering children) is just the way the world works, and that you can still like characters who do so. After all, it wasn't their personality per se, but more just how horrible the world is.


Honestly? While I personally never liked Jaime, I think you're missing an important part of his story. I don't think people sympathize with him for screwing his own sister, or pushing a kid out of a window. They sympathize because they think he's trying to do better. He is taking his oath to Catelyn very seriously. He is cutting off his ties with his leech of a sister. He rescued his falsely accused brother. He is trying to stop the violence in the Riverlands as peacefully as he can, even by besmirching his own name to do it.
This is it, I think. The more we learn about Jaime the more it becomes apparent that we meet him in the middle of his character development, right at his nadir. He started out as a bright-eyed wonder-boy prodigy, someone who desperately wanted to be a storybook knight, who idolised people like Gerold Hightower and Arthur Dayne and then got to fulfil the dream by going on to fight alongside them as one of their sworn brothers. From what we hear of his childhood - which admittedly isn't much - he seems to have been a genuinely idealistic and kind-hearted person who was badly let down by the absence of a decent role model, and too easily manipulated by his (much more selfish and nasty) sister. Then almost as soon as he's let into the Kingsguard, he starts to see things a bit more clearly. He's sent away from the greatest tournament of all time without being given the chance to compete for no good reason. Then Aerys, completely unjustifiably, takes against him for apparently mocking him and treats him with contempt. He's forced to stand by with the idols of his boyhood as the king commits various atrocities, and them telling him they can't do anything about it.

Eventually the one man he still has any respect for in the royal household, the guy who he'd been putting up with all of this for in the hope that he'd make it all better, gets a spike through the chest, Aerys starts making plans to burn down the city and kill everyone, and he snaps and puts an end to it. Ned turns up, and immediately passes judgment on him for having broken his oath. He (at least by Jaime's perception) isn't interested in hearing why he did it, or the fact that it was unquestionably past time someone dealt with Aerys, just the breaking of this stupid oath that he's long since been persuaded is of no real merit anyway.

From that point onwards he just puts his moral compass away. He's fed up of the hypocrisy and double standards that people judge each other by (none moreso than his boss, Barristan, who spends the next fourteen years quietly looking down his nose at him). As far as he can see it there's no point trying to be a good guy because it doesn't make any difference and people will hate you regardless. The whole time he has Cersei pouring poison in his ear, which doesn't help, but he's more than happy to turn his brain off regardless. And it's this Jaime, after thirteen years of bitterness and decay, that we meet in A Game of Thrones. He acts ruthlessly and decisively and yet entirely on impulse, fuelled by over a decade of repressed anger without any real thought as to the rightness or political consequences of his actions; his motivations to protect Cersei and protect Tyrion and that's about it.

But then he meets Brienne and loses his hand and that forces a reassessment of the situation, where he starts using his brain again after so long ignoring it, and doing the right thing again becomes an important consideration for him - backed up with the greater maturity that enables him to make a positive difference rather than just standing by and watching aghast. By the current point in the series he's one of the very few characters who is both in a position to, and is actively trying to, put things right, and is doing a reasonable job - and this in spite of, not because of, Cersei; while he may never fully shake her hold on him, he's finally looking at things from outside the narrow perspective she offered and acting for the greater good even if she gets screwed in the process.

Pushing Bran out of the window is the worst thing he ever does. I suspect he will still have to answer for that, if we consider that narratively the loss of his hand doesn't make up for the loss of Bran's legs. But that was also the nadir of his character arc, and it's hard to imagine the Jaime from A Dance with Dragons doing the same thing again.

A lot of fans are never going to forgive him for what happened in the first book, and that's understandable, though I don't think it's necessarily the narrative intention and they may be disappointed that that increasingly gets left behind, with focus on what he's doing now rather than what he did then. It's probably a case of the "Thomas Covenant problem", to whit, a major character does something so awful early in the narrative that even though they are an ostensible hero/protagonist of the story, it's very hard if not impossible for the reader to forgive them.

I think too that first impressions count for a lot. Jaime's first impressions on the reader were intentionally very negative so he has to fight against that the whole time in order to recoup the lost ground. Meanwhile characters like Daenerys, Tyrion, even Bran, were introduced with more of a positive vibe and while they've gone on to do some pretty nasty things (some arguably worse than what Jaime did) people are much more ready to find excuses for them, pass those actions off as aberrations, and generally view them as continuingly sympathetic characters.

(As another incidental example, Sandor Clegane also murders a child in cold blood in A Game of Thrones, and people seem to have much less of a problem with him overall than they do with Jaime).

[pendell]

I haven't read the book, only seen the HBO show.

If they are similar in any way, that isn't the lesson I took from the shows.

The lesson I took from the show is that GRR Martin is trying to make something that is closer to real history than the tropes of high fantasy.

Compare it to OOTS , for example. In OOTS, almost every defined character has a named arc, and their deeds are brought back on their own heads in a display of poetic justice. Elan, by virtue of his goodness, is shielded from harm as if he were the Roadrunner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wile_E._Coyote_and_the_Road_Runner). He is guaranteed a happy ending in-comic, because his goodness follows him, while Belkar has a cloud of doom hanging over him.

The world of game of thrones isn't like that. It doesn't matter how nice you are , there's no magic shield that's going to keep you alive when renegade members of the Brotherhood Without Banners come through, or the white walkers show up, or you just happen to be in the wrong place when Cersei decides to blow up a church.

In OOTS, goodness overcomes all .

In Game of Thrones, Wisdom overcomes all . And even then, wisdom must be married to power , or it is useless.

Does that mean that goodness and mercy are ultimately futile endeavors?

From a short-term, purely self-centered perspective, yes. Being Ned Stark and telling the evil queen your plans to her face is going to get you killed horribly.

In the short term.

But in the long run it's the decency and the honor of the Starks that is allowing them to slowly but surely get back on their feet, to take back their ancestral castle, to raise an army with dependable allies, and to make a credible stand against the invasion that is surely coming. Likewise, Daenerys has the services of people such as Tyrion, which she could not have or keep if she was a tyrant.

By contrast, the Lannisters have experienced a short-term success, but their treachery is causing them to squander the famous Lannister gold, to bleed their armies white, and to sit atop the iron throne utterly friendless. It's not a stable situation, and will not last.

So I draw different conclusions from the OP. Pure cynicism puts you in the position of Cersei or Jaime snarling "f** everyone who isn't us". Because you trust no one, no one trusts you either, and there is no one you can really trust to have your back. You can't build a dynasty that way.

So it isn't that Game of Thrones is a grimdark world such that it is a more realistic one. One where high fantasy heroics don't work. A world where an invisible plot shield doesn't form around the righteous simply because they're sickeningly wholesome and kind. And , perhaps more important , a world where heroes must do their own dirty work. In OOTSworld, there are some things heroes simply don't do. The heroes wouldn't kill Nale, for example, so Tarquin was written into the story to fulfill that role. There's a Belkar or a neutral elf to do what's needful (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadGuysDoTheDirtyWork) so that the heroes don't have to tarnish themselves and spoil their luster.

Well, guess what. In GOT, that simply doesn't happen. If there's a bad guy out there who needs to die, you need to cause his death. Not valiantly and heroically spare him and let some other villain do the task for you.

So no one who survives in the world of game of thrones is going to be a shining, pure innocent. They will all have their hands dirty to one degree or another.

But just because you have unclean hands is no reason to just simply jump full into the muck. That's not a survival strategy either. Every person a Joffrey or a slaver kills breeds an angry victim, and sooner or later the Aryas of the world will have their vengeance.

So the survivors who live through GOT aren't going to be villains or heroes. They're going to be people who, in Pratchett's words from Night Watch:



He was all for getting recruits out on the street, but you had to train them first. You needed someone like Detritus bellowing at them for six weeks, and lectures about duty and prisoners’ rights and the ‘service to the public’. And then you could hand them over to the street monsters who told them all the other stuff, like how to hit someone where it wouldn’t leave a mark and when it was a good idea to stick a metal soup-plate down the front of your trousers before attending to a bar brawl.

And if you were lucky and they were sensible, they found somewhere between impossible perfection and the Pit where they could be real coppers – slightly tarnished, because the job did that to you, but not rotten.


Emphasis mine.

Those are the people who will survive GOT -- and ASOIAF, if it's anything like the show. Not heroes, but then, this isn't really heroic fantasy. It's the War of the Roses with a fantasy gloss on the surface.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Yana]

Words.

This is probably the best and most succinct summary of Jamie Lannister that I've ever seen. Well done!

[DomaDoma]

FYI, I'm not going to wade into the battle on this thread. But I will offer the tease that, in the lesson three weeks out, Ned Stark's one true failure is not actually anything to do with his death.

[Shadow of the Sun]

FYI, I'm not going to wade into the battle on this thread. But I will offer the tease that, in the lesson three weeks out, Ned Stark's one true failure is not actually anything to do with his death.

I'm assuming that Ned's one true failure is instilling a code of honour onto his various children that results in a lot of stupidity on their part. Nice job breaking that marriage contract, Robb!

[Dienekes]

I'm assuming that Ned's one true failure is instilling a code of honour onto his various children that results in a lot of stupidity on their part. Nice job breaking that marriage contract, Robb!

To be fair, it's kind of implied that Robb was raped. And then just tried to pick the most honorable course of action he could after the fact.

[Lord Raziere]

I'm assuming that Ned's one true failure is instilling a code of honour onto his various children that results in a lot of stupidity on their part. Nice job breaking that marriage contract, Robb!

Not really, his real failure was not using his power as a Hand as an institutional thing enough. As Hand he could've done a lot more with his legitimate authority to bring down the conspiracies around him without ever compromising his honor, but saw his position as an advisory one when really he is more of second King capable of far more than that.

I think its only because of other character assessments of him that this notion is thrown around so much, problem is those assessments are from: the Lannisters who are not honorable at all, Littlefinger who hates him and wants to prove he is smarter than everyone, and Varys who is the real master-level manipulator of all this. In the short the three factions in all of Westeros that have the least use for honor or giving Ned anything resembling good advice. So they jump upon his use of it as bad leadership when its not because they personally don't see the point and don't really understand the real reasons why he loses the Game of Thrones.

his real mistake was not using the power he had more extensively.

[Shadow of the Sun]

To be fair, it's kind of implied that Robb was raped. And then just tried to pick the most honorable course of action he could after the fact.

I found no implication in the text that Robb was raped - rather that one thing lead to another with Jeyne and then he married her rather than have a bastard like Ned did.

If you can provide evidence for the "raped" theory, please do so.

[An Enemy Spy]

I found no implication in the text that Robb was raped - rather that one thing lead to another with Jeyne and then he married her rather than have a bastard like Ned did.

If you can provide evidence for the "raped" theory, please do so.

i think what he means is that Jeyne's mother used Robb's injuries and emotional distress at hearing what happened at Winterfell to manipulate Robb and Jeyne into having sex and probably shaming him into marrying her. She made an offscreen deal with Tywin that probably involved this.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Even in that case, had Ned not been so insistent on honour and the like when raising Robb it was entirely possible for Robb to go "Well, have fun with that. I'm off back to actually win this war and marry my Frey wife, see you later!"

[Dienekes]

I found no implication in the text that Robb was raped - rather that one thing lead to another with Jeyne and then he married her rather than have a bastard like Ned did.

If you can provide evidence for the "raped" theory, please do so.

Simple use of the modern definitions of the word and the descriptions of the event. Robb was wounded, in the Westerling castle, and apparently high on the milk of the poppy. Maggy the Frog's daughter, I.E. Jeyne Westerling's mom admits to Jaime she sent Jeyne into the room originally to do the deed.

So we have a high and delirious Robb getting a girl sent into his room for the exact point of having sex with him. That's a rape, in modern understandings of the word, admittedly.

[Velaryon]

Sorry to dredge up a post from several pages back, but no one brought this up at the time that I could see.


As to how much the succession order matters to other lords of Westeros, there are plenty of precedents for inconvenient older children being shuffled out of the way. Sam is sent to the Wall. Aemon Targaryen is made a maester. Jaime was appointed to the Kingsguard. A number of Targaryen heirs were just passed over, because nobody wanted them. Gerold Lannister is suspected to have killed his older brother and niece, but everyone let it slide because he was a good lord. Even to take the Starks themselves as an example and thus put Robb's complaint about the succession order in context, Manderly sends Davos to get Rickon, who he considers his king, even though so far as he knows Bran is still alive. This is largely pragmatism (he knows where Rickon is, but not Bran) but still, the ultimate Stark loyalist just wants a Stark, not necessarily the next in line. Stannis himself is prepared to unprecedentedly release Jon from the Wall so that he can become lord of Winterfell. And Robert has already broken with the normal chain of succession by making Renly lord of Storm's End, rather than Stannis - and nobody seems to have had a problem with this apart from Stannis himself.


Jaime does not fit in with the other examples here. He wasn't "shuffled out of the way," he joined the Kingsguard specifically so he wouldn't be parted from Cersei and forced into a marriage with someone else. Against his father's wishes. Jaime is in fact the opposite of "inconvenient older children being shuffled out of the way" because he is supposed to be the heir, but takes refuge in the Kingsguard to get out of it.

I agree with the rest of your post though, and indeed pretty much everything I've read from you in this thread. I just wanted to nitpick this one example out of your point because it doesn't really fit in with the point you're making.



Simple use of the modern definitions of the word and the descriptions of the event. Robb was wounded, in the Westerling castle, and apparently high on the milk of the poppy. Maggy the Frog's daughter, I.E. Jeyne Westerling's mom admits to Jaime she sent Jeyne into the room originally to do the deed.

So we have a high and delirious Robb getting a girl sent into his room for the exact point of having sex with him. That's a rape, in modern understandings of the word, admittedly.

I as well did not pick up any indication that Robb's deflowering of Jeyne was anything other than poor judgment on his part. But then, it's been a few years since I last read the books. Can you point me to approximately where this section you mention can be found in the books? I looked for it, but all I could find was Sybelle (Jeyne's mother) saying that she made sure her daughter was not pregnant with Robb's child, and that she had an understanding with Tywin that her family would be pardoned and her children given good marriages. I was not able to find a passage where she indicates that she set up Jeyne and Robb to do the deed.

[factotum]

Compare it to OOTS , for example. In OOTS, almost every defined character has a named arc, and their deeds are brought back on their own heads in a display of poetic justice. Elan, by virtue of his goodness, is shielded from harm as if he were the Roadrunner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wile_E._Coyote_and_the_Road_Runner). He is guaranteed a happy ending in-comic, because his goodness follows him, while Belkar has a cloud of doom hanging over him.

In OOTS, goodness overcomes all .


I mostly agree with your assessment of Game of Thrones, but I have to cavil at your description of OotS. Durkon, probably the most purely Good person in the strip, is currently the prisoner of an evil vampire intent on destroying the world--that simply wouldn't happen if your "goodness overcomes all" mantra was actually the case. Elan has a guaranteed good ending, true, but that's simply because that was prophesied, not because of his Goodness--and you'll note that said prophecy was basically "You at least will get a good ending", implying pretty heavily that others will not.

[Lethologica]

I mostly agree with your assessment of Game of Thrones, but I have to cavil at your description of OotS. Durkon, probably the most purely Good person in the strip, is currently the prisoner of an evil vampire intent on destroying the world--that simply wouldn't happen if your "goodness overcomes all" mantra was actually the case. Elan has a guaranteed good ending, true, but that's simply because that was prophesied, not because of his Goodness--and you'll note that said prophecy was basically "You at least will get a good ending", implying pretty heavily that others will not.
For Durkon's current state, refer back to "who was winning at the end of The Empire Strikes Back?"

For the future, while I agree that it's unlikely all Good characters will escape unscathed, I find myself dubious that any eventual sacrifices will serve to undermine the heroic narrative. And while Elan's good ending is guaranteed by prophecy, Elan's Goodness was likely a factor in the authorial choice to write that prophecy into the story.

[Ninja_Prawn]

(As another incidental example, Sandor Clegane also murders a child in cold blood in A Game of Thrones, and people seem to have much less of a problem with him overall than they do with Jaime).

Yeah, that was a good summary of Jaime. With Sandor, I think he cops less flak because a) he was under legitimate orders and b) Micah was lowborn, hence most of the other characters (through whose limited POVs we are told the story) don't really make a big deal of it. To them, smallfolk are little better than property (or, in the case of Ironmen, literal property). By modern standards, Sandor's crime is (arguably) worse than Jaime's, but in the setting, it isn't a crime at all in most people's eyes.

[factotum]

For Durkon's current state, refer back to "who was winning at the end of The Empire Strikes Back?"

aSoIaF is no more ended than OotS is, so it's possible that every Good character surviving in it will have a good ending and all the evil ones will end up with a bad one. I acknowledge that's not a *likely* outcome, any more than the likely outcome of OotS is that rocks fall and everyone dies, but the point remains that we can't judge one unfinished work by different criteria than another unfinished work.

[pendell]

aSoIaF is no more ended than OotS is, so it's possible that every Good character surviving in it will have a good ending and all the evil ones will end up with a bad one. I acknowledge that's not a *likely* outcome, any more than the likely outcome of OotS is that rocks fall and everyone dies, but the point remains that we can't judge one unfinished work by different criteria than another unfinished work.

While the story has not run its course, GRR Martin has signalled repeatedly through media that ISOIAF will have a 'bittersweet' ending, as opposed to a 'happy' one. More like the Lord of the Rings in the book, where the evil villain was overthrown but at cost, both to the free people in general and Frodo personally. Frodo saved the world -- but not for him. And the Elves still faded from the world, as did the Dwarves.

I predict that the White Walkers will be turned back and peace will be restored , but the world that was saved will be sadly diminished from what it was before. Some things that are broken can never fully heal. Which is why we should avoid letting things get to that point in the first place!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[GAZ]

Jaime does not fit in with the other examples here. He wasn't "shuffled out of the way," he joined the Kingsguard specifically so he wouldn't be parted from Cersei and forced into a marriage with someone else. Against his father's wishes. Jaime is in fact the opposite of "inconvenient older children being shuffled out of the way" because he is supposed to be the heir, but takes refuge in the Kingsguard to get out of it.

Jaime was chosen for the Kingsguard by Aerys to slight Tywin. The Mad King thought that his Hand was getting too big for his britches and additionally had the hots for said Hand's wife. So Aerys takes Tywin's heir and sticks him where he can't inherit no more. Because the appointment was technically an honor the Lannisters couldn't protest. Aerys absolutely shuffled Jaime out the way, just to hurt Tywin.

[Knaight]

Yeah, that was a good summary of Jaime. With Sandor, I think he cops less flak because a) he was under legitimate orders and b) Micah was lowborn, hence most of the other characters (through whose limited POVs we are told the story) don't really make a big deal of it. To them, smallfolk are little better than property (or, in the case of Ironmen, literal property). By modern standards, Sandor's crime is (arguably) worse than Jaime's, but in the setting, it isn't a crime at all in most people's eyes.

It's more a) than b). Putting aside how the only real severity difference is in the outcome - they both tried to kill a child, Jaime just failed - Sandor made the decision to follow orders. Jaime came up with the idea of the murder, then attempted it.

[Lethologica]

aSoIaF is no more ended than OotS is, so it's possible that every Good character surviving in it will have a good ending and all the evil ones will end up with a bad one. I acknowledge that's not a *likely* outcome, any more than the likely outcome of OotS is that rocks fall and everyone dies, but the point remains that we can't judge one unfinished work by different criteria than another unfinished work.
I'm not judging one unfinished work by different criteria than another unfinished work. Your claim was that Durkon's situation "simply wouldn't happen" with a 'goodness overcomes all' mantra. This is false, and your objection only affirms that, without making any judgments about either work.

I also don't think it's invalid to judge on likely outcomes. Likelihood may be difficult to analyze, but at least it attempts to capture the trajectory of the narrative (and place it in the context of similar narratives), and not just a snapshot of a single narrative state.

[warty goblin]

Yeah, that was a good summary of Jaime. With Sandor, I think he cops less flak because a) he was under legitimate orders and b) Micah was lowborn, hence most of the other characters (through whose limited POVs we are told the story) don't really make a big deal of it. To them, smallfolk are little better than property (or, in the case of Ironmen, literal property). By modern standards, Sandor's crime is (arguably) worse than Jaime's, but in the setting, it isn't a crime at all in most people's eyes.

Also Sandor killed a non-viewpoint character we only saw once, and he did the deed off-camera. We tend to care about the characters we know, and we basically don't know Micah from a hole in the ground.

Which loops back to one of the more interesting questions I think the first book in particular poses; who is really responsible for the murder of children, and why do they do it? In Jaime's case he's clearly responsible, but on the other hand, if he doesn't throw Bran off the tower, he's condemning himself, his sister, and probably his children to death instead. How many people would run those risks? Eddard is, so far as I can tell, the only person in the series who does hazard the welfare of his own family for the sake of other people's children, which does in fact make him a man in a thousand. Whether you think that was a moral choice I suppose comes down to how much risk you think its acceptable to subject your own children to, for the sake of other children. You can also attack the intelligence of the choice he made, or how he implemented it, but I think the moral aspect is more interesting in a lot of ways. One of the things I appreciate about A Song of Ice and Fire is that it doesn't necessarily answer this question, or even hammer you about the face to an absurd degree with it, but it's there, and it sits in the back of one's mind if you let it.

(Way back in 2012, Cyanide made a Game of Thrones cRPG, which unfortunately I think about eight people played. It had some pretty clever twists on the standard RPG formula, and ended up being a sort of longform character study centered on the question of responsibility for murdered children. In a rare case of a videogame tie-in genuinely capturing the themes of the source, it never decides one way or the other, but forces you to decide within the framework of the game. )

[Lemmy]

One of the main points of ASoIaF is that there's no absolute evil or good. Every human, no matter how virtuous or vicious will have their own moral failings. Which is exactly as it is in real life. No matter who you admire in the real world, if you look close enough, you will find something wrong with their morals.

[The Eye]

Evil, shmeevil. I'm disliking the series because I don't think he'll be able to actually finish it any time before he dies. He keeps writing more and more words with less story shooting off in all directions ending up delaying and bloating the books into multiple volumes.

That's very rude, why people keep speculating about George R. R. Martin health?

How would you feel if your co-workers keep says that you would be dead before you are able to finish -Whatever work you do-? Stop that. SHAME ON YOU! SHAME! SHAME!

On the topic. I don't think he's a cynic. Both good guys and bad guys die on the books. They die because they did something stupid. Sometimes honorable, but still stupid. Just like real life.

[Rynjin]

I always thought the "moral" (such as it is) in ASoIaF was more "Inflexibility and lack of perspective lead to death" more than "Good sux, evil rox".

Most of the characters that die in the series do so either because their honor, pride, or obligation leads them to it in some way, or they trust someone they shouldn't have or SNUB someone they shouldn't have.

Ned Stark dies for being quite a bit too straightforward a man. Tywin Lannister on the other hand dies because he's the big swinging **** in Westeros and he knows it...but he forgets to temper that arrogance with a healthy bit perspective, ignoring the feelings and motivations of those beneath him. If he'd considered Tyrion as a person rather than a possession who he could punish or reward as he pleased, he'd still be alive.

[pendell]

One of the things I appreciate about A Song of Ice and Fire is that it doesn't necessarily answer this question, or even hammer you about the face to an absurd degree with it, but it's there, and it sits in the back of one's mind if you let it.


I suspect this is in part because Ice and Fire is written for adults, not children, while many fantasy works seem written with children to adolescents in mind.

There seems to be a temptation , when writing for young people, to stop being an entertainer and to start being a pedagogue, to become concerned you have a moral duty to educate your readers , and this can detract from the writing when you stop subtle moral undertones and start dropping Aesop Anvils in the hopes that your readers will take home Valuable Life Lessons.

I suppose that's true; the problem is that there are already Afterschool Specials a-plenty. The more anvilicious and preachy a work, the less entertaining, the less your target audience is paying attention.

Of course, part of that is because some readers can be very frustrating. I note that Rich Burlew, for example, has become more and more obvious in his moral themes and ideas over the years, partly as a result of maturity, and partly as a result of what appears to be dismay that his readers don't always pick up on the subtleties. The fact that we're still arguing about Redcloak or Belkar's alignment, for example, when he's done everything he can to mark them as evil short of hanging an "EVIL" balloon above their heads as they walk around.


ASOIAF is not *prescriptive* in terms of morality. It is *descriptive*. Take away the supernatural elements, it is describing human character as it is, not as we wish it was, and it is taking a clear-eyed look at what actually works and what doesn't.

The conclusions ASOIAF seems to approach aren't all that different from what real-world thinkers have come to; that evil (treachery, murder, brutality) often represents a short-term gain (which is why evil is a temptation at all) but it comes at a cost long-term.

The Red Wedding is a case in point: The Freys gained a house , wealth and power from their betrayal of the Starks in the short term. In the long term they lost all their friends and gained the contempt even of their allies. Eventually, their surviving victims came for them. And Walter Frey lost everything he had gained, along with his life, his house, and the lives of all his children.

This phenomenon in the real world is discussed in terms of the Prisoner's Dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma) in the real world. In the dilemma, being selfish ends the game immediately, because once you've betrayed your partner he'll never deal with you again. OTOH, being altruistic eventually sets you up for the other person to betray you. So the optimal solution -- from a selfish perspective -- is to be honorable for long enough to maximize your payout, then "cash out" with a final betrayal.

Of course, living out a life from that self-centered perspective has its own shortcomings. The point is that even from a selfish perspective being honorable most of the time is a better payoff than constant betrayal and lies. Even if you're only setting them up for a later betrayal, you've got to still be honorable enough to earn their trust in the first place.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[HeadlessMermaid]

The Red Wedding is a case in point: The Freys gained a house , wealth and power from their betrayal of the Starks in the short term. In the long term they lost all their friends and gained the contempt even of their allies. Eventually, their surviving victims came for them. And Walter Frey lost everything he had gained, along with his life, his house, and the lives of all his children.
That... hasn't happened. I mean, nobody expects a happy ending for Walder Frey, but for now he's alive and well, as are most of his offspring. (Not all of them, the downfall has begun). We're talking about the books, not the show, right?

[pendell]

That... hasn't happened. I mean, nobody expects a happy ending for Walder Frey, but for now he's alive and well, as are most of his offspring. (Not all of them, the downfall has begun). We're talking about the books, not the show, right?

I'm talking about the show, which I assume follows the books closely enough. I'd be surprised if Frey and his descendents live happy lives and die natural deaths. But then, few people in GRR Martin's world do, good or evil.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[factotum]

I'm talking about the show, which I assume follows the books closely enough.

The show is past the point of the books at the moment--the entire sixth season is basically stuff that *may* happen in the books (because they had George Martin's notes to crib from) but isn't guaranteed to. Even before that point, though, there are significant points of departure between book-story and show-story, like Catelyn never coming back after the Red Wedding in the show (she does in the books) or the show creators dropping the entire Dorne storyline like a hot rock because they made such a hash of it in season 5 and couldn't be bothered to fix it properly in season 6.


I'm a little puzzled about the whole Jon Snow rising from the dead and becoming King of the North that happens in the show, for instance--Martin is on record as saying that he doesn't like people just coming back from the dead without consequence. The only other people who've been resurrected in this way (Beric Dondarrion and Catelyn Stark) are ruins of human beings who lost large chunks of their memory, so if Snow is brought back, I just don't see it being quite such an easy ride as is portrayed in the TV show.

[HeadlessMermaid]

I'm talking about the show, which I assume follows the books closely enough. I'd be surprised if Frey and his descendents live happy lives and die natural deaths. But then, few people in GRR Martin's world do, good or evil.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
In some cases, the show follows the books pretty closely, in others it veers off to completely different paths. Some pretty important themes have been omitted altogether. And even when the events depicted are more or less the same, the characterisation may not agree with the original, the mood may be off, etc.

I do not recommend attempting to critique the books based on the show. Ultimately, they are two different things.

[Aedilred]

I'm a little puzzled about the whole Jon Snow rising from the dead and becoming King of the North that happens in the show, for instance--Martin is on record as saying that he doesn't like people just coming back from the dead without consequence. The only other people who've been resurrected in this way (Beric Dondarrion and Catelyn Stark) are ruins of human beings who lost large chunks of their memory, so if Snow is brought back, I just don't see it being quite such an easy ride as is portrayed in the TV show.

So I was aware that something like this was happening on the show, because the internet is a thing and show-watchers (in general, not picking on anyone here specifically) seem unprepared to return the courtesy I did them of not blurting out spoilers all over the place.

But I really don't want to know any details, or really anything at all, about anything that happens on the show past the point the books stop and I doubt I'm alone in that in this thread. The show has generally trodden closely enough to the overall plot of the books that it's possible to derive possible/probable book spoilers from it, while also mangling the story enough in places that that really isn't the way I want to discover what's happening. This is why I stopped watching the show after the end of season 4. As a friend of mine put it, after a certain point it just becomes the crappy off-brand fanfic version of ASoIaF.

I'd thus appreciate it if anything from the show past the start of season 5 were put in spoilers - or not discussed at all - given that this is ostensibly a book thread. Please. Otherwise I'll have to stop reading the thread.

[Lemmy]

I'm a little puzzled about the whole Jon Snow rising from the dead and becoming King of the North that happens in the show, for instance--Martin is on record as saying that he doesn't like people just coming back from the dead without consequence. The only other people who've been resurrected in this way (Beric Dondarrion and Catelyn Stark) are ruins of human beings who lost large chunks of their memory, so if Snow is brought back, I just don't see it being quite such an easy ride as is portrayed in the TV show.To be fair, Beric was a ruin because he was resurrected time and time again (by a considerably less powerful priest), and Catelyn was resurrected (by Beric, who, was you said, had lost much of his "life force" or whatever by then) after her body had been rotting in the river for 3 days (and she was certainly consumed by hatred and grief at the time of her death).

I'm sure there'll be consequences for Jon, but I don't think they'll be as severe as they were for Beric and Cat.

[Legato Endless]

I
I do not recommend attempting to critique the books based on the show. Ultimately, they are two different things.

I wouldn't go quite that far. Intolerable as the show's bouts of incoherence in every facet of writing can be, broad extrapolations can still be made with the usual caveats of adaptions. Pendell's responses are pretty on the ball. His first especially is arguably the best broadstrokes overview we've gotten in thread.

[Aedilred]

This phenomenon in the real world is discussed in terms of the Prisoner's Dilemma in the real world. In the dilemma, being selfish ends the game immediately, because once you've betrayed your partner he'll never deal with you again. OTOH, being altruistic eventually sets you up for the other person to betray you. So the optimal solution -- from a selfish perspective -- is to be honorable for long enough to maximize your payout, then "cash out" with a final betrayal.

Of course, living out a life from that self-centered perspective has its own shortcomings. The point is that even from a selfish perspective being honorable most of the time is a better payoff than constant betrayal and lies. Even if you're only setting them up for a later betrayal, you've got to still be honorable enough to earn their trust in the first place.

I feel like, although it takes a little while for the reader to be clued in, the series chronologically opens with a complete deconstruction of the "happy ending" of fairytale-fantasy.

Robert's rebellion is a pretty classic fantasy story. The Evil King rules the land with an iron fist. His son, the Wicked Prince, kidnaps the Hero's Girlfriend.Her family protest and the Evil King kills them. The Hero and his Loyal Companion, with the help of their Wise Mentor, fight to overthrow the Evil King. The Hero kills the Wicked Prince in single combat. The Evil King, realising he's defeated, decides to blow up the world, or at least the parts of it he can reach! Fortunately, at the last minute, the Evil King's followers see the error of their ways. The White Knight kills him before he can enact his evil plan. Although the Hero's girlfriend has tragically died during the fighting, he becomes king, marries the sister of the White Knight, with his Wise Mentor as his trusted advisor...

... and that's the point at which most stories stop. Happily ever after is assumed.

That's the point at which ASoIaF starts - or rather it starts several years after that with the long-term consequences now fully apparent. It turns out the Hero is not a very good king, especially after the Wise Mentor dies. It turns out the Hero and his bride hate each other, but they can't do anything about it, because of the political situation. The Loyal Companion can't stand the White Knight, and it turns out that nobody in the kingdom trusts the White Knight after he betrayed his former master, even though he did so for the right reasons. The Wicked Prince's surviving family bear a grudge over his death, and maybe he wasn't actually quite as wicked as we thought? That the Hero overthrew the Evil King has weakened the institution of monarchy, so powerful vassals are chipping away at it. The Hero's son is a horror show, quite as bad as the Evil King was, but he's next in line regardless.

Turns out that Happily Ever After isn't quite what it said on the tin. This is another reason why I think it's naive to expect a happy ending (ignoring Martin's own comments on the matter) - given that the series started by exploding the notion of a happy ending, even if it did ostensibly end happily we have no real reason to believe that happy ending will last. Because so long as there's a future, things haven't really ended, and our current Heroes will still have to deal with a lot of the same crap that made a mess of things this time round.

Same thing goes for Prisoner's Dilemma-type scenarios. The scenario ends but you have to live with the consequences of it.

[Mith]

Following this thread makes me think I should give ASOIAF a second chance.

[pendell]

I'd thus appreciate it if anything from the show past the start of season 5 were put in spoilers - or not discussed at all - given that this is ostensibly a book thread. Please. Otherwise I'll have to stop reading the thread.

Very well. Sorry :smallredface:



Because so long as there's a future, things haven't really ended, and our current Heroes will still have to deal with a lot of the same crap that made a mess of things this time round


Or, as another storyteller said, "There is no end; there's only the point when the storytellers stop talking".

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Grim Portent]

Turns out that Happily Ever After isn't quite what it said on the tin. This is another reason why I think it's naive to expect a happy ending (ignoring Martin's own comments on the matter) - given that the series started by exploding the notion of a happy ending, even if it did ostensibly end happily we have no real reason to believe that happy ending will last. Because so long as there's a future, things haven't really ended, and our current Heroes will still have to deal with a lot of the same crap that made a mess of things this time round.

Same thing goes for Prisoner's Dilemma-type scenarios. The scenario ends but you have to live with the consequences of it.

That actually reminds me of a series of children's books I used to read, in which there are usually 'happy endings', with tyrants overthrown, liberty restored, a bright new future and so on, but then in the next set of books set 20 years later things have usually gotten just as bad if not worse than before, since just because you killed the last set of bad people doesn't mean most of the people who took their place weren't just as bad. You can get a few years of things being better before people let things slip, those who exploit others start to rise in power again, freedoms are eroded and rules made in the light of optimism on the day the last tyrant fell are quietly broken in the gloom of shady backrooms and guildhalls by the new one.

In a lot of ways ASoIaF reminds me of those books, there are bright eyed idealists doing things for all the right reasons, but they can't change the deeper problems in the world around them, partly because they trust people who don't deserve it, or because they believe anyone can be redeemed and should be given the chance to do so, or because they can't stomach doing the things they would need to do to end the vicious cycle of greed, wrath, unfettered lust and self interest that constantly poisons any attempt to improve things.

Most, but importantly not all, people are not going to be grateful for being spared punishment for their wrongdoing, they'll plot for spiteful vengeance at being stopped in the first place or try to continue their indiscretions out of sight. A rare few will seek redemption, but they are rare, and few of the common people have the courage, or real desire, to stand up and rebel against the people who systematically abuse them and those around them, because they're scared, they're beaten down, or because deep down they're not really any different than the people at the top and don't care about the horrible things they do because they would do the same things if they had the power.

[factotum]

I'd thus appreciate it if anything from the show past the start of season 5 were put in spoilers - or not discussed at all - given that this is ostensibly a book thread. Please. Otherwise I'll have to stop reading the thread.

Apologies, I've spoilered it now. Although I'm kind of OK knowing stuff that's happening in season 6 of the show because I'm reasonably certain the sixth book will turn out very different to that...

[DomaDoma]

Ugh. So now I have access to none of the books. I fear I will need to suck it up and buy the things.

Fortunately, this one is a sufficient no-brainer that I trust even Enemy Spy will not demand citations.

Love And War

It's fortunate that the conversation above has turned to fantasy tropes, rather than the actual course of history. The following is, unmistakably, a deconstruction of the former. Historically speaking, marriages among the nobility were supposed to be loveless. It was the expected thing. When people went off the rails (usually, as in Westeros, by getting a taste of romantic love with someone other than their current spouse), it was smoothed over, except on the odd occasion that they did something spectacular like divorce, run away, or murder their spouse - and even then they had to be monarchs to raise a real stir. "Real stir" does not here equate to "civil war." It can go that route, but much more often manifests in a lesser form.

In Westeros, everyone who feels love does something spectacular on account of it, all at once, and every single time it amounts to a cassus belli.

So much for the deconstruction of fantasy. Throwing in the love of children, however, is strictly mean-spirited. As for philia - a kind of love quite neglected except in the fantasy genre - it is all but absent here, replaced by alliances of convenience which always end, and usually on bad terms. Insofar as it is present - well, I've arbitrarily decided that this isn't the week. It would fit, but it would fit more powerfully elsewhere.

Let's have a rundown.

Daenerys' motive is probably the most basic fantasy motive of all: "You killed my family, the rightful monarchs. Prepare to die." This is sufficient motive to spend her life cutting bloody swaths through a different continent entirely while revolving around a long series of heartbreak and personal drama.

Lysa Arryn killed Jon because she thought it would win the heart of Littlefinger, who in turn encouraged her to do it because he thought it would win him Catelyn. (Though he is perfectly willing to play Talleyrand in the meantime.)

Renly's bid for the kingship takes place because he and Loras are so sparkly together.

Catelyn kidnaps Tyrion in a fit of protective love for her son, thereby sparking Robb's rebellion, which will declare itself as the Kingdom of the North upon Ned's death, and go to pieces when he falls in love with Jeyne Westerling.

Cersei... whooboy. Not only did her love for Jaime start the succession crisis to begin with, but she is also acting to protect her children, and also in reaction to a foiled teenage ardor for Rhaegar, who loved Lyanna, as did Robert, who not only rebelled and killed Rhaegar on that account (with Ned there to avenge his brother), but consequently sparked marital hatred with Cersei by calling her the wrong name during sex. [Side note: does this actually happen? And if it does happen, would a prolific philanderer like Robert be one to make the mistake?]

The entire House of Dorne, it transpires, is still resentful over the death of Princess Elia. So unwilling are they to let go of this that their rebellion begins in earnest after Ned, Robert, Tywin, and Gregor (so far as they know) are all already dead, Jaime is who-knows-where, and they're reduced to mopping up ancillary Lannisters. As with Cersei, it's a mystery how they kept a lid on it for so long. I expect spoilers I've learned about book five will have something to do with it, but given what I understand of said spoilers, I will hazard that the only reason Gregor Clegane survived long enough to have a role in the story is that Mr. Martin very much wanted to feature a Gregor Clegane.

Meanwhile, Joffrey's instigations of the war, and Theon's piggy-backing onto it, are motivated by sheer spite, simply to leaven the mixture.

That leaves only Stannis with a motive that goes beyond the strictly personal. You know, something that actually resembles an idea of kingship. He's motivated by a rigid idea of justice, by the best blood claim to the throne, and by a pragmatism that, owing to the virulent Rh'llor-worship entailed, eclipses the justice thing in a hurry.

So, there are plenty of motives left on the cutting-room floor here. No one's after the good soil of the Reach or the gold of Casterly Rock. No one is particularly worked up about doctrines of the Seven; everyone seems to have the tacit understanding that the prevailing religion is hokum. As for a system of law - don't make me laugh. It seems that every king, Stannis included, is expected to arbitrate every question of justice personally. (With extension to major nobles, when the kingdom is sufficiently large that the king won't always be within riding distance.) Stannis just happens to make himself consistent about it. The best the others can do is pledge not to be incest-maddened sadists.

And meanwhile, the philosophical fan doesn't say "this is what it would look like if fantasy tropes were carried to their logical conclusion." He doesn't say "this is what feudal times were really like." (And good for him, because it isn't.) He says "this is what life is really like."

The things we love destroy us every time.

[factotum]

I think I'm going to have to disagree with some of your assessments there, DomaDoma.

Daenerys: She wants the throne of Westeros, true, but the bloody swath she cut across the eastern continent is down to her personal hatred of slavery, not anything to do with regaining her throne. We've already discussed that yes, this didn't turn out as she would have wished it to, but it's not really her fault that she was naive enough to believe that the people of Astapor and Yunkai'i would go along with her anti-slavery crusade.

Littlefinger: I don't think he considered for a moment that getting Lysa to kill her husband would net him Catelyn--I honestly can't think of what labyrinthine network of events would have had to happen for *that* to take place. Everything he's done, IMHO, has been to increase his own personal power, because, to his mind, he would have *had* Catelyn in the first place if he'd been a great lord rather than a minor noble from the Fingers.

Renly: Renly may well have loved Loras, but I don't see that as a motivation for becoming King. Remember, he'd already warned Ned Stark to capture Cersei and her children rather than giving them free reign to do what they want, and he must surely have known that Ned would never countenance him sitting on the throne while his older brother still lived. It was only when that line of action was blocked that he left King's Landing and decided to declare himself King.

Catelyn: I don't think her kidnap of Tyrion was done out of love at all--it was done because she wanted revenge on him for what she saw as his attempt to kill Bran (although even then she had her doubts by the time they reached the Eyrie). It certainly wasn't what sparked Robb's rebellion, it was Ned Stark's imprisonment and later execution which did that--which you'll note was mostly orchestrated by Cersei, who hates Tyrion and would have liked nothing better than to see him walk out the Moon Door of the Eyrie.

Cersei: Frankly, Cersei is a fool and does foolish things, whether she does them for love of her children, love of power, or whatever. She's definitely fallen out of love with Jaime by the stage things are at currently in the books.

Dorne: You must point me at this book you've read where Dorne is in active rebellion? Yes, the Prince of Dorne is working quietly against the Lannisters, but it's not got anywhere near open rebellion at this stage--at most he's attempting to marry his son off to Daenerys in order to get a right to the Iron Throne. His daughter Arianne attempted a more direct rebellion by kidnapping Cersei's daughter Myrcella, but she was stopped by her own father.

[DomaDoma]

Revenge for loved ones definitely counts as a manifestation of love here.

Also, fairly certain that Littlefinger's actual plan was for Ned to take the black and for himself to be the comforting angel, because he miscalculated and figured that Joffrey would, out of the gate, bow to some kind of regency. 'Kay, may actually need citations on this one. But whether it's past bitterness or future ambition, love is the impetus.

Naivete is a fault. In fact, it's perilously close to the only fault in the books. Even Cersei is naïve in that she's living her life in pursuit of the classic "thwart the prophecy" mistake.

Daenerys' first decision was "I need to be a Queen somewhere before I can be Queen in Westeros." Only much later did it become "Astapor looks prime for that."

You are likely to be right about Renly. "See, I told you so" seems to be quite the recurrent cause for betrayal from below. I only remember his swooshy-cape knight-of-summer fantasies and the way Loras egged them on. We'll see for sure when I - sigh - buy the books.


Um. I appear to have slipped into argument. Okay. While I'm already there, here's something I would not otherwise be able to address for months: Knaight, the notion that jousts and so on are "pro-knight propaganda" implies there is an alternative. Lord Kitchener wants you to join the Royal Army because there's a good chance you wouldn't otherwise want to. Hereditary knighthood, in the High Middle Ages? Not even in the same room as the table of debate. Even Wat Tyler was against serfdom, not gentry. Jousts, as propaganda for knighthood, is akin to modern America creating a national holiday for salaried white-collar workers.

No, the pretty knightly customs are because there's not a war on and there ought to be something in its place. And it may as well be beautiful. Wherever there's money to be flaunted in medieval life, beauty - or, at the very least, spectacle - is the first thing on the budget. Honestly, can you think of any other reason for the rich to eat swan's necks with the feathers still on?

Meanwhile, Sandor is debunking not hereditary knighthood, but the very notion of might for right.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Your points in your post are all very valid, DomaDoma. Until you get to your last paragraph.


And meanwhile, the philosophical fan doesn't say "this is what it would look like if fantasy tropes were carried to their logical conclusion." He doesn't say "this is what feudal times were really like." (And good for him, because it isn't.) He says "this is what life is really like."

The things we love destroy us every time.

I think you are strongly underestimating the average fan of any bent, philosophical or not. I strongly doubt that A Song of Ice and Fire has influenced many fans' moral or philosophical understanding of the world to the degree that you are arguing it does. Honestly you're reminding me a lot of the concerned mothers who thought that Dungeons and Dragons tempted their kids into Satanism.

I'm sure there are some people who take bad moral lessons from novels like ASoIaF but I don't think there are many. Add in the very subjective nature of the interpretation of novels or any form of art at all and I find the general thesis in which you've made this thread is incredibly flimsy.

[DomaDoma]

Philosophically, it appeals to people already bent towards cynicism. Which, as a matter of pure fashion, is the prevailing wind for First Worlders in their late teens and early twenties. But ASoIaF, with its explicit maxims and over-the-top demonstrations thereof, sure as anything doesn't help. Especially as cynicism is very often a self-fulfilling prophecy: act as though everyone is about to screw you over, and odds are they won't like you. Which, barring respite for self-reflection (an increasingly scarce commodity) only builds the rationale for cynicism.

So: Moral, yes. Condemnation, yes. Panic, no.

[Lord Raziere]

......is this a criticism of ASOIAF, or the ASOIAF fandom?

because one can get confused between a fandom's view of a work and the work itself. and fandom often is misaimed and gets things wrong.

Particularly when fandoms tend to take a lot of the wrong things at face value and look too deep into a lot of other wrong things. Which ASOIAF invites all too readily. someone not really skilled at reading in between the lines could conclude that all the explicit things that characters say is the intended message, when the best authors rarely make the explicit thing the message, since explicit messages are telling rather than showing, and authors are trained to show not tell.

what ASOIAF deconstructs might not be what your thinking about. Some tropes are so omnipresent as to be invisible so its jarring when they are not there.

[DomaDoma]

Which ASOIAF invites all too readily.

'Nuff said. Definitely looks like that theme to me, and definitely looks like that theme to a good part of the fanbase. And, frankly, I'm hard-pressed to think of a well-written work, from Shakespeare to Stephenson, that does not, to some extent, openly state its theme. Maybe if the likes of Virginia Woolf and Samuel Beckett are regarded as the "best", but that - and, I guess, the whole conceit of "it's the audience's fault for not reading deeply enough to get it" - betrays a definite bias toward academia.

EDIT: Okay, this post marks the end of my lurking to pounce on every little disagreement. Not a good habit to get into.

[pendell]

Philosophically, it appeals to people already bent towards cynicism. Which, as a matter of pure fashion, is the prevailing wind for First Worlders in their late teens and early twenties. But ASoIaF, with its explicit maxims and over-the-top demonstrations thereof, sure as anything doesn't help. Especially as cynicism is very often a self-fulfilling prophecy: act as though everyone is about to screw you over, and odds are they won't like you. Which, barring respite for self-reflection (an increasingly scarce commodity) only builds the rationale for cynicism.

So: Moral, yes. Condemnation, yes. Panic, no.

I can't speak to other fans, but my moral and philosophical outlook was shaped a long time before Martin's work ever appeared. As strange as it may sound, some of us do read more than one book in our lifetimes. :smallannoyed:

I suspect the same will be true of many 30+ and 40+ something readers. We've got enough mileage under our belts that a new book or idea doesn't make an impact -- it jostles up against all the other stuff we've picked up over the years. It's unlikely a book will have such a revolutionary impact that it reorders our entire mental universes. Certainly Martin's work has not had that impact on me.

For younger teen and twenty something fans, my recommendation is more books. And not just from this era either. The more wide your reading from a disparate set of viewpoints, the more rounded your internal mental universe will be. Milton, Bunyan, Byron, Tolkien, Stephen King, Rowling... they all have their place.

Which brings up a point -- even with a teenage reader, it's not as if they're coming to Martin's work in a vacuum. They bring to it all their previous experiences as well.

Also, if you can make it through the classic works of western civ -- or through any work of medieval or ancient history, such as Herodotus or Plutarch's lives -- they will also transmit a definite sense of cynicism. Real history is not a fairy tale, even when 'history' and 'myth' blend into each other, as it often does in ancient history.

That's why I don't find Martin's work especially objectionable; I've seen all of this before, in the pages of real history. Not white walkers and dragons, obviously, but human treachery, greed, naivete, and foolishness yes. That in spades.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[DomaDoma]

Brian: A good subsidiary part of this endeavor is to show that ASoIaF doesn't properly represent history, either. This week's topic, Love and War, is a particularly fruitful case in point. Go back a page to see it.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Anyone who thinks that ASoIaF is an accurate representation of history has bigger problems than being inculcated with a degree of cynicism.

A lot of the characters in the novels are inspired by historical people, including some of the events. Even so it has to be understood by anyone reading the novels that they are fiction and as such aren't very realistic, but I usually take that as assumed when it comes to fiction novels.

I mean, hell, I've seen/read more realistic sex scenes in bad fanfiction...

[pendell]

Brian: A good subsidiary part of this endeavor is to show that ASoIaF doesn't properly represent history, either. This week's topic, Love and War, is a particularly fruitful case in point. Go back a page to see it.

Looking back I see this:



So much for the deconstruction of fantasy. Throwing in the love of children, however, is strictly mean-spirited.


Counterexample: Livia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livia), ruthlessly murdering any of her children's competitors out of the way in order to secure the Empire for them. And of course there's also Agrippina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippina_the_Younger#Empress_of_Rome), poisoning her husband to clear the way for her son.

Now I should caveat this: It's possible that these two women didn't actually do these things. But that is the story told of them, and in ancient history 'myth' and 'history' blend together. It's what the Romans passed on to the succeeding generations, and it is a fair warning: Contrary to the popular wisdom that women are the gentler sex, they can be just as cruel as men are when their children are involved in the game of thrones.

"Love" is a very tricky word. As others have mentioned in thread, there are at least three or five different Greek words which are all lumped together under the English word 'love'. I would rather say that what we are obsessed with is what kills us and others. There is a difference between love and obsession, although it is not always obvious either to novel writers , to nonfiction historians, or the people actually living through it.

But it is not at all uncommon for people to find themselves fixating on things to an unhealthy degree, out of proportion to everything else in their lives, to the harm of themselves and the harm of others.

Also, while this is slightly out of forum rules and so I can't really pursue this line of thinking any further here, I would strongly recommend C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce (https://www.amazon.com/Great-Divorce-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652950/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1487602978&sr=8-1&keywords=great+divorce), which also explores this theme of the 'love' that destroys.

I would most highly recommend Lewis' tale (in that volume) of the Tragedian. It's the story of a man whose "love" for his wife actually is the cause of misery. Being miserable himself, he plays an endless series of psychological games to torment her, all in the name of "love" of course, and being a person who believes in love she actually goes along with it.

That doesn't mean that Love is , in and of itself, an evil. Indeed, if you know Lewis' writings at all, you know that in them Love is the greatest force in the universe for good, more powerful than death itself.

But there's a difference between Love and "love". Which takes us back to those Greek words again. I believe the Love Lewis refers to is self-sacrificing love; the love that cares for others more than itself. The Love Aslan showed to Edmund by going under the knife for him is different in kind from the "love" which Jadis used to tempt Digory with in the Magician's Nephew -- the love of his mother which tempted him to steal a fruit in order to save her life. The first kind of Love brought good both to Edmund and others. That second act, also motivated by something called "love", would have brought temporary relief but long-term misery to everyone, even the woman whose life would be saved by the theft.

By contrast , the "love" shown by his Tragedian and Martin's Cersei is of a different kind; it is ultimately selfish and self-centered. Cersei's "love" for her children has no room or consideration for other humans as having any value whatsoever, and the Tragedian's "love" for his wife -- and much of the "love" seen elsewhere in that volume -- has other , less pretty names in older literature: Lust, passion, obsession, desire. The thing that tempts men to all manner of harm because they think with the Trouser Titan rather than their brains.

How many different things we use that word "love" for! At one and the same time we use it to describe the highest and holiest state a human can attain, but we also use it to describe the depths to which a man will sink when motivated by an uncontrolled passion, obsession, a lust which they cannot or will not control.

And it's not always easy to tell the difference between the two.

The same emotion which motivates a man to lay down his life to protect a loved one may also motivate him to lay waste to cities, if necessary, to save that same loved one.

So I suggest that there are many kind of "love", and some of them are very like fire; useful if controlled and directed in constructive channels, but uncontrolled can leave vast swathes of destruction where nothing grows.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[DomaDoma]

I actually agree completely with this assessment of the love presented in A Song of Ice and Fire. And The Great Divorce is one of my favorite rereads (I'll gather you haven't read Till We Have Faces - easily Lewis's stylistic best, and the protagonist is very much a Cersei in her love. Albeit she manages to separate her duty as a monarch from these issues. Mostly. Certainly enough to stay well clear of Mr. Martin's inevitable political disaster button. Anyway, you have to read that thing, it's gorgeous.)

The thing is... there's no other kind of love on display. Only the love you cling to with a vise-like grip and avenge with a hateful hand, a whole showroom of it smashed together in a forty-car pile-up. (As for mercy - a higher love than the kind discussed here - that will be covered next week.)

[pendell]

I actually agree completely with this assessment of the love presented in A Song of Ice and Fire. And The Great Divorce is one of my favorite rereads (I'll gather you haven't read Till We Have Faces - easily Lewis's stylistic best, and the protagonist is very much a Cersei in her love.


I have, actually. He retells the story of Cupid and Psyche from the viewpoint of Psyche's sister, does he not? Truth be told, while many enjoy Till We Have Faces, I always found The Great Divorce more accessible. YMMV, obviously. I know that technically Till We Have Faces [/i] is the better book, I just enjoyed Divorce more.

I'm trying to remember the denoument at the end when Orual comes to the realization


That her actions are motivated by the fact that, when it comes to it, she'd rather have Psyche with her and miserable than in the presence of the gods and happy. That having Psyche separated from her is in some ways worse if Psyche is happy in her new situation than if she is suffering in some unspeakable underworld hell.

This "love" that Orual feels for her sister is really a form of unhealthy attachment -- unhealthy in that she really wishes harm to her sister if that's what it takes to keep her.

Thankfully, she comes to her senses in the end





Albeit she manages to separate her duty as a monarch from these issues. Mostly. Certainly enough to stay well clear of Mr. Martin's inevitable political disaster button. Anyway, you have to read that thing, it's gorgeous.)


Thank you. I have :).



The thing is... there's no other kind of love on display. Only the love you cling to with a vise-like grip and avenge with a hateful hand, a whole showroom of it smashed together in a forty-car pile-up. (As for mercy - a higher love than the kind discussed here - that will be covered next week.)

Hrm ... I'll have to defer to you on this because I've only seen the show, not read the books. If so , it is a weakness in Martin's works. A flaw ... but you can't write what you don't know. If you've never seen the other kind of love, it's easy to think ALL love is like the kind Orual and Cersei have.

It's like with an abused child. I've known a few of those. The entire concept of "love" can be poisoned for them because of their earlier experiences. It may be a long time, if ever, before they can learn to call the "love" that left scars and burns and bruises what it truly is -- a twisted, sick counterfeit -- and learn to embrace the genuine with genuinely kind people.

There aren't enough of those in the world, and they are not often attracted to the seats of power.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Shadow of the Sun]

I actually agree completely with this assessment of the love presented in A Song of Ice and Fire. And The Great Divorce is one of my favorite rereads (I'll gather you haven't read Till We Have Faces - easily Lewis's stylistic best, and the protagonist is very much a Cersei in her love. Albeit she manages to separate her duty as a monarch from these issues. Mostly. Certainly enough to stay well clear of Mr. Martin's inevitable political disaster button. Anyway, you have to read that thing, it's gorgeous.)

The thing is... there's no other kind of love on display. Only the love you cling to with a vise-like grip and avenge with a hateful hand, a whole showroom of it smashed together in a forty-car pile-up. (As for mercy - a higher love than the kind discussed here - that will be covered next week.)

I'll disagree again. There are definitely examples of love that are not as you describe; off the top of my head I can think of Ellaria Sand's love for Oberyn and her speaking out against any attempts of retribution for his death, Kevan's love for Tywin, Genna's love for Tywin, Jon's love of Arya, Ned's love of Arya... not every example of love shown in A Song of Ice and Fire involves spectacular stupidity.

[warty goblin]

Two points.

First, there certainly is self-sacrificing love in ASoIaF. Eddard sacrifices his honor and the truth in an effort to save his children. Catelyn is pretty clearly willing to run enormous hazards for the sake of her children. I can't figure out a way in which Jaime benefits from rescuing Tyrion - and he's certainly running a risk doing so - except that he loves his brother. Yoren smuggles Arya out of King's Landing, and dies fighting to keep her safe; perhaps not out of love of her, but for loyalty to Eddard.

It is fair to say that self-sacrificial love is seldom a climatic event that bends the world in a new direction. Or at least not immediately, and with lots of flash and noise. If Jon is in fact Lyana's son (which seems extremely likely), then Eddard's willingness to lie even to his own wife to keep Jon safe is going to be an extremely big deal.



Secondly, so what if ASoIaF is deeply cynical? It's a story about people in, or vying for, power. Usually by exceedingly violent means. Look at powerful people for very long, and generally the question isn't whether to be cynical, the question is whether it's possible to be cynical enough.

[DomaDoma]

Clearly I am hazy on book four, and especially the Dorne parts. If anything is going to change my mind on Mr. Martin's theme, it'll be if Catelyn's impotent warnings, Ellaria's impotent warnings, Brienne's meandering tour of torched villages, and (if this hypothesis works out) things that haven't occurred to me and/or come up in book five, add up to a definitively building swing in the direction of "hey, maybe it'd be better if everyone who's anyone stopped putting bloody personal vengeance at the top of the priority list."

But until then, I'll say Catelyn and Ellaria - certainly, the other genuine loves you've listed - aren't there as a thematic contrast. They're just kind of there, because even George R.R. Martin can't have everyone betray everyone else 24/7. As long as they're kept safely inert by keeping the parties apart, unwilling to listen, or strictly in the background, it can coexist with the world-wrecking stuff without messing up the theme. And of course Catelyn has a firm foot in both columns in any event.

[Dienekes]

Clearly I am hazy on book four, and especially the Dorne parts. If anything is going to change my mind on Mr. Martin's theme, it'll be if Catelyn's impotent warnings, Ellaria's impotent warnings, Brienne's meandering tour of torched villages, and (if this hypothesis works out) things that haven't occurred to me and/or come up in book five, add up to a definitively building swing in the direction of "hey, maybe it'd be better if everyone who's anyone stopped putting bloody personal vengeance at the top of the priority list."

But until then, I'll say Catelyn and Ellaria - certainly, the other genuine loves you've listed - aren't there as a thematic contrast. They're just kind of there, because even George R.R. Martin can't have everyone betray everyone else 24/7. As long as they're kept safely inert by keeping the parties apart, unwilling to listen, or strictly in the background, it can coexist with the world-wrecking stuff without messing up the theme. And of course Catelyn has a firm foot in both columns in any event.

Now that I disagree with, Cat most definitely has been denouncing the various wars while she was alive in direct contrast to most the warlike men. Whether it was against the calling of her son as king, trying to reason with Renly, anything she does was to show a thematic contrast in how this effects others. She shows genuine fear at the prospect of the violence caused by all this revenge and fighting, and just tries to save her children.

Then when we see her embrace the revenge cycle we are drawn specifically to see her as lesser for it. As becoming some kind of monster.

Then there's Ellaria's rather long speech about how all the revenge is pointless and she will have no part in it. And specifically this was the character that was most closely tied to Oberyn.

Those were what were supposed to resonate because we're watching first hand how the cycles of revenge are doing terrible things to the individuals and the kingdoms.

[Aedilred]

It's fortunate that the conversation above has turned to fantasy tropes, rather than the actual course of history. The following is, unmistakably, a deconstruction of the former. Historically speaking, marriages among the nobility were supposed to be loveless.

Genuinely not sure about that. At best, it's a major simplification. That may be what it looks like to us in retrospect, but we live in a completely different society and think in a rather different way as a result. Certainly it's true that love was not at the top of the list of priorities when arranging a marriage, but to say that such marriages were expected to be loveless overstates the case. Apart from anything else, children in such a society are raised to expect to have their marriages arranged for them, so their conception of relationships and love itself is likely to be completely different. They may well grow up already knowing who they're going to marry, which gives ample opportunity for a kind of love to develop (note too that opportunities to socialise with other young people of similar station and thus find partners for themselves may well be more limited anyway). A good marriage-arranger/parent will give consideration to the character of the individuals concerned, both in terms of arranging it between suitable parties where that character is developed, and in shaping the character of the candidate where it isn't.

The experience of Catelyn, married for political reasons, initially finding her husband and his household strange and slightly intimidating, and growing to love him over the course of their marriage - notwithstanding an earlier indiscretion on his part - to the point she is emotionally devastated when he is killed, would not have been at all unusual. In fact if it's unusual in any respect it is probably in that their marriage was arranged at short notice, so she had no chance to become accustomed to the idea of marrying Ned (rather than Brandon).

There still exist societies today where arranged marriage is the, or at least, a, norm, and people I have known from such backgrounds (and indeed facing such prospects) would probably be surprised at the idea that partners in such a marriage aren't expected to love one another. It's just they're told who they're expected to love (although they might be given a choice between a handful of potential suitors/candidate brides and thus have some say in the matter), rather than having to select for themselves in the haphazard way we consider normal.

I think the earlier posters have done a reasonable job so far of dealing with the examples given of characters acting stupidly out of love, and offering counterexamples. I'll add another argument on one of the points you raise: Robb doesn't marry Jeyne Westerling out of "love", per se. He marries her out of what he considers his duty - that it is better to dishonour himself by breaking the Frey bargain than dishonour her by not marrying her. It might appear that they love each other thereafter, but let's face it, they're adolescents who've found someone attractive who both wants to and is allowed to have sex with them. They don't have enough time together for the novelty of constant shagging to wear off.

I must say "motivated by love" is a category you treat very broadly, and you seem to boil down almost any character motivation to some version of it, which makes it look like you're stretching rather.

[Legato Endless]

'Nuff said. Definitely looks like that theme to me, and definitely looks like that theme to a good part of the fanbase. And, frankly, I'm hard-pressed to think of a well-written work, from Shakespeare to Stephenson, that does not, to some extent, openly state its theme. Maybe if the likes of Virginia Woolf and Samuel Beckett are regarded as the "best", but that - and, I guess, the whole conceit of "it's the audience's fault for not reading deeply enough to get it" - betrays a definite bias toward academia.

If by openly states you mean is readily apparent, then that's not hard at all. The fact that quibbling over Shakespearean themes is a centuries long evolved practice, just try summarizing Hamlet's theme to a forum of passionate people and you're prone to get a dozen opinions to the contrary.

But for something more concrete, I submit The Brothers Karamaov. I'm not going to bother going on at length here, but the last work of Dostoyevsky contains the infamous chapter poem, The Grand Inquisitor. For many years, the chapter was sold separately as a standalone work, and regarded to essentially encapsulate the theme of the novel. This has fallen by the wayside more recently, as a structural analysis leaves this interpretation quite anemic. Today, the much more dominate perspective is that while the poem is a meditation on a number of things, the novel does not agree with it's conclusions and is in many ways a counterargument and rejoinder to the questions it poses.


Which, barring respite for self-reflection (an increasingly scarce commodity) only builds the rationale for cynicism.

Oh ye unhappy world, that the people have grown so lacking in this esteemed virtue. -The cry of someone, in every culture and age of history


Anyone who thinks that ASoIaF is an accurate representation of history has bigger problems than being inculcated with a degree of cynicism.

I also doubt it's a viewpoint endorsed by anyone in this thread. People have argued that calling Song grimdark is cartoonish compared to real life was silly, but none of us were arguing this is educational historical fiction 101. It's also a bit of a misnomer to state that something happens less frequently in real life than dramatic fiction to be an argument for something being fundamentally fabricated. Events occurring improbably more frequently for dramatic effect is part and parcel to a lot of fiction more grounded than ASoIaF.

[Knaight]

I also doubt it's a viewpoint endorsed by anyone in this thread. People have argued that calling Song grimdark is cartoonish compared to real life was silly, but none of us were arguing this is educational historical fiction 101. It's also a bit of a misnomer to state that something happens less frequently in real life than dramatic fiction to be an argument for something being fundamentally fabricated. Events occurring improbably more frequently for dramatic effect is part and parcel to a lot of fiction more grounded than ASoIaF.

Or, more succinctly - the readers managed to pick up on the whole "fantasy series" thing.

[DomaDoma]

Oh ye unhappy world, that the people have grown so lacking in this esteemed virtue. -The cry of someone, in every culture and age of history


They were probably answered by that rejoinder, too. So far as self-reflection goes, we can safely peg the sweet spot to sometime after the mass-production of books, but before the television. I wouldn't go crazy about cheap stamps, or the locomotive, or even telegraphy (sorry, Neil Postman), but I'll believe the changeless state you imply when you find me one scrap of personal correspondence since, say, 1965, that holds a tall candle to Sullivan Ballou. (Which, incidentally, a goodly amount of Victorian correspondence manages.)

Needless to say, I'll have gotten through the series before we resume to see if Dienekes isn't crazy. If he does seem to be correct that the series is thematically pivoting away from Getting Your Own As Shrewdly As Possible, I'm still not going to stay the series through to the end, and I'll roll out How Is Your Gang Rape Pregnancy Today, Unnecessary Minor Character? to explain why, but you may consider the central thesis a bust.

[Aedilred]

They were probably answered by that rejoinder, too. So far as self-reflection goes, we can safely peg the sweet spot to sometime after the mass-production of books, but before the television. I wouldn't go crazy about cheap stamps, or the locomotive, or even telegraphy (sorry, Neil Postman), but I'll believe the changeless state you imply when you find me one scrap of personal correspondence since, say, 1965, that holds a tall candle to Sullivan Ballou. (Which, incidentally, a goodly amount of Victorian correspondence manages.)

Needless to say, I'll have gotten through the series before we resume to see if Dienekes isn't crazy. If he does seem to be correct that the series is thematically pivoting away from Getting Your Own As Shrewdly As Possible, I'm still not going to stay the series through to the end, and I'll roll out How Is Your Gang Rape Pregnancy Today, Unnecessary Minor Character? to explain why, but you may consider the central thesis a bust.

I don't know that Lollys is an unnecessary character, except inasmuch as any of the minor characters in the series are. You could strip out probably nine tenths of the named characters and you'd still have a functional story - but it would be a completely different thing. And indeed, this is a fictional series, so I'm not sure anything about it is necessary, really.

Aside from her illustrative purposes, Lollys also serves to enable Bronn's rise up the social ladder - and to pull off probably the greatest piece of trolling in Westerosi history since Aerion Brightflame named his son. Without Lollys, that plot would require a new character to be created with at least some of the same attributes.

Now, I'm not going to defend the gang-rape pregnancy thing, because that was thoroughly nasty even by the "showing the ugly side of history" standards of ASoIaF, and I've heard it argued it's biologically implausible too. The series's dodgy handling of rape (over and above its often dodgy handling of sex) is one of the relatively few criticisms of it that I've found really hits the mark both in terms of accuracy and severity and is cause for some concern. I'm inclined to give it a "C, room for improvement" on that score, though, rather than a straight F and throw the books away, at least partially on the basis of good authorial intentions.

[pendell]

Something I'm pondering about the earlier thread when we discuss "marrying for love" versus "arranged marriage".

What exactly does marrying for love mean?

After all, when I think fantasy stories, Aladdin fell for Princess Jasmine, or Sleeping Beauty fell for Prince Charming ... but they barely know each other. That is not love. That is a crush.

And as anyone who's been in or taught high school knows, adolescent crushes are a highly dubious foundation for a long term relationship.

So what is this "love" they are marrying for? And is that truly a better basis for a long term relationship than an arranged marriage? In real life, I have Indian neighbors and co-workers, many of them in arranged marriages. There have been some real clunkers in that community, but as a rule they don't seem particularly unhappy compared to their western neighbors who marry for love. If anything, their relationships seem more stable.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dienekes]

Something I'm pondering about the earlier thread when we discuss "marrying for love" versus "arranged marriage".

What exactly does marrying for love mean?

After all, when I think fantasy stories, Aladdin fell for Princess Jasmine, or Sleeping Beauty fell for Prince Charming ... but they barely know each other. That is not love. That is a crush.

And as anyone who's been in or taught high school knows, adolescent crushes are a highly dubious foundation for a long term relationship.

So what is this "love" they are marrying for? And is that truly a better basis for a long term relationship than an arranged marriage? In real life, I have Indian neighbors and co-workers, many of them in arranged marriages. There have been some real clunkers in that community, but as a rule they don't seem particularly unhappy compared to their western neighbors who marry for love. If anything, their relationships seem more stable.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

This is somewhat related, but since we're talking about love, lust, and medieval culture. Anyone here read William Reddy's "The Making of Romantic Love"?

It's an interesting read that tries to decipher what actually is the historical romantic love. And, his conclusions are somewhat interesting, basically claiming that the modern concept of romantic love comes out of French chivalric romance poetry, which was itself an answer to the growing Catholic attempts to squash down on adultery.

The premise is, before this love and lust were not considered in any way related, nor where they supposed to be. You were not supposed to be in lust with your partner, you were supposed to love them; as in protect, honor, create a family, respect, all that stuff. The Romance poetry then became an explanation that the various adulterous actions were justified because they were rendered honorable based on this vague concept of "true love."

And he draws from a comparison of what love means in other cultures, including Rome, India, and Japan, and even just looking at medieval peasant societies. So for the medieval peasants the most common concept of marriage seemed to come from, some guy knocked up a girl and so they got married to make it legitimate. Which he based on looking at weddings and births in various towns, and found the correlation between marriages among people who were giving birth 7 months later (or fewer) incredibly high. Then at other cultures where the medieval romance poetry wasn't common he didn't find instances of this concept of true love to justify marriage or behavior.

Which all just brings up the question of whether or not romantic love is actually a real emotion, rather than a persistent cultural delusion to justify our actions in marriage and sexuality.

I should note, I'm not actually saying I think Reddy is 100% right, just, an interesting look at romantic love and what it means to us as opposed to medieval life.

[pendell]

The premise is, before this love and lust were not considered in any way related, nor where they supposed to be. You were not supposed to be in lust with your partner, you were supposed to love them; as in protect, honor, create a family, respect, all that stuff.

Consider Song of Solomon, though. That's all about sexual desire within the context of marriage. If love and lust were ostensibly divorced in medieval Europe, they certainly weren't in the entire ancient world. India has the Kama Sutra. Which .. well, here's the outline from wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama_Sutra)



1. General remarks
five chapters on contents of the book, three aims and priorities of life, the acquisition of knowledge, conduct of the well-bred townsman, reflections on intermediaries who assist the lover in his enterprises.

2. Amorous advances/sexual union
ten chapters on stimulation of desire, types of embraces, caressing and kisses, marking with nails, biting and marking with teeth, on copulation (positions), slapping by hand and corresponding moaning, virile behaviour in women, superior coition and oral sex, preludes and conclusions to the game of love. It describes 64 types of sexual acts.

3. Acquiring a wife
five chapters on forms of marriage, relaxing the girl, obtaining the girl, managing alone, union by marriage.

4. Duties and privileges of the wife
two chapters on conduct of the only wife and conduct of the chief wife and other wives.

5. Other men's wives
six chapters on behaviour of woman and man, how to get acquainted, examination of sentiments, the task of go-between, the king's pleasures, behaviour in the women's quarters.

6. About courtesans
six chapters on advice of the assistants on the choice of lovers, looking for a steady lover, ways of making money, renewing friendship with a former lover, occasional profits, profits and losses.

7. Occult practices
two chapters on improving physical attractions, arousing a weakened sexual power.


So the Kama Sutra seems to depict sexual desire as a normal and expected part of a married family life. Thus, "love" and "lust" appear in both ancient Israel and India as expected in marriage. So the opinion that there should not be lust within marriage appears to be a minority opinion.

I have to wonder where the medieval Europeans got the idea that love and lust were divorced from each other came from; is it a carryover from the Romans?



So for the medieval peasants the most common concept of marriage seemed to come from, some guy knocked up a girl and so they got married to make it legitimate.


In ancient Israel, the punishment for being caught sleeping with an unmarried woman was to marry her -- which goes right along with the "someone got knocked up. Quick! Get married!" phenomenon you describe.

I've heard it said that in farming culture, where procreation is critical to the family, men won't take chance on infertility. So they won't marry someone until there is, shall we say, evidence of fertility. Once that is done, a marriage is arranged with all haste, sometimes with the assistance of a shotgun in the father-in-law's hands.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dienekes]

Consider Song of Solomon, though. That's all about sexual desire within the context of marriage. If love and lust were ostensibly divorced in medieval Europe, they certainly weren't in the entire ancient world. India has the Kama Sutra. Which .. well, here's the outline from wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama_Sutra)



So the Kama Sutra seems to depict sexual desire as a normal and expected part of a married family life. Thus, "love" and "lust" appear in both ancient Israel and India as expected in marriage. So the opinion that there should not be lust within marriage appears to be a minority opinion.

Ahh, but even the Kama Sutra has a strict division between what to look for in a wife and wifely duties vs what to look for in a courtesan. Hell it even delineates in tiers of wife, with a chief wife and other wife. It's been years since I read the book, but I believe the argument was that this completely goes against the concept of a passionate romantic love. Marriage was still a sexual relationship, it was supposed to engage in sex and reproduce, but that is not the same as lust over an individual.

He does also go on that there is nothing that actively prevents an individual from lusting over their love, and I believe uses an example of Emperor Claudius who very much did seem to both love in the familial sense and lust after his wife. But sees this as more of a coincidence than a standard, and it wasn't as if that ended particularly well for Claudius, or the wife.


I have to wonder where the medieval Europeans got the idea that love and lust were divorced from each other came from; is it a carryover from the Romans?

In ancient Israel, the punishment for being caught sleeping with an unmarried woman was to marry her -- which goes right along with the "someone got knocked up. Quick! Get married!" phenomenon you describe.

I've heard it said that in farming culture, where procreation is critical to the family, men won't take chance on infertility. So they won't marry someone until there is, shall we say, evidence of fertility. Once that is done, a marriage is arranged with all haste, sometimes with the assistance of a shotgun in the father-in-law's hands.

Which would back up his claims, I think. Or at least could be argued to fit within his premise until more definitive information comes out. Attempting to reproduce to find out the person you are supposed to then love becomes more important and separate from anyone such peasants would lust over.

I'm sure I'd have a better grasp of the arguments if I reread Reddy again. I haven't done since I was in university, and my memory is crap.

[Wardog]

Let's have a rundown.

Daenerys' motive is probably the most basic fantasy motive of all: "You killed my family, the rightful monarchs. Prepare to die." This is sufficient motive to spend her life cutting bloody swaths through a different continent entirely while revolving around a long series of heartbreak and personal drama.
[/I]

I don't think that's accurate.

If I remember correctly (I haven't read the books in a while, and am behind on the show), Dany's life and character arc went something like this:


Growing up, with no plan or expectations in life other than to marry her rather nasty, controlling brother.
"Change of plans: now you marry this barbarian warlord, so I can get an army to retake my throne".
Discovering that being the queen khaleese of a nomadic horde is actually quite a good life (especially when it means you no longer have to take any crap from your brother).
Brother goes too far, gets killed. Dany is now the last (known) Targaryian and "rightful" ruler of Westeros - but (IIRC) doesn't show any sign of wanting to take the throne, and Drogo seems to shows no more desire to conquer Westeros than he did before.
Robert tries to have her assassinated. Drogo flips out and vows to conquer Westoros. I'm not sure if Dany was particularly motivated to do so (and if it was, I think it was more a case of "they tried to kill me - they need to be dealt with" rather than reclaiming her throne or avenging her family. Her main act is to try to moderate and mitigate the harm caused by Drogo's war.
Drogo gets killed, the khalesar abandons her, and she's left destitute and deserted with nothing but her closest followers, and the likewise abandoned weak and poweless dregs of the khalesar. Oh, and she's naked, fireproof, and covered in dragons.
Motivated primarily by the need to survive, and the desire to protect her remaining followers, she starts trying to build up a power base.
As she progresses, she encounteres more people who need her help, more people she needs the help of, and gradually builds up a larger and larger following (both military and civilian), to the point that she both can and is required to take territory.
Then everything goes to pot when she learns the hard way that ruling is difficult, sometimes there are no good choices, and dragons cause as many problems as they solve.


If I remember right, the whole "I'm the rightful queen and I will retake my throne with fire and blood" only really go going at about stage 8, after she had already been forced by circumstance to take up arms, and when that course seemed both necessary and inevitable. (Its probably also a good example of events, self-interest, and ideology coming together in such a way that people are likely to see a particular course of action as obviously righteous, when a bit of critical reflection might mke them realise that actually its neither).

[Eldan]

"Love" is a very tricky word. As others have mentioned in thread, there are at least three or five different Greek words which are all lumped together under the English word 'love'.

That's a definite failing of English and probably most Germanic languages. Eros, Agape and Philia are very different feelings, and none of these even include platonic love or obsessive love.

[Rodin]

I don't think that's accurate.

If I remember correctly (I haven't read the books in a while, and am behind on the show), Dany's life and character arc went something like this:


Growing up, with no plan or expectations in life other than to marry her rather nasty, controlling brother.
"Change of plans: now you marry this barbarian warlord, so I can get an army to retake my throne".
Discovering that being the queen khaleese of a nomadic horde is actually quite a good life (especially when it means you no longer have to take any crap from your brother).
Brother goes too far, gets killed. Dany is now the last (known) Targaryian and "rightful" ruler of Westeros - but (IIRC) doesn't show any sign of wanting to take the throne, and Drogo seems to shows no more desire to conquer Westeros than he did before.
Robert tries to have her assassinated. Drogo flips out and vows to conquer Westoros. I'm not sure if Dany was particularly motivated to do so (and if it was, I think it was more a case of "they tried to kill me - they need to be dealt with" rather than reclaiming her throne or avenging her family. Her main act is to try to moderate and mitigate the harm caused by Drogo's war.
Drogo gets killed, the khalesar abandons her, and she's left destitute and deserted with nothing but her closest followers, and the likewise abandoned weak and poweless dregs of the khalesar. Oh, and she's naked, fireproof, and covered in dragons.
Motivated primarily by the need to survive, and the desire to protect her remaining followers, she starts trying to build up a power base.
As she progresses, she encounteres more people who need her help, more people she needs the help of, and gradually builds up a larger and larger following (both military and civilian), to the point that she both can and is required to take territory.
Then everything goes to pot when she learns the hard way that ruling is difficult, sometimes there are no good choices, and dragons cause as many problems as they solve.


If I remember right, the whole "I'm the rightful queen and I will retake my throne with fire and blood" only really go going at about stage 8, after she had already been forced by circumstance to take up arms, and when that course seemed both necessary and inevitable. (Its probably also a good example of events, self-interest, and ideology coming together in such a way that people are likely to see a particular course of action as obviously righteous, when a bit of critical reflection might mke them realise that actually its neither).

I think that's broadly correct, with the caveat that she grew up hating Robert and anyone associated with him. They killed her family, forced her into poverty and into being a fugitive. She's convinced that they're the evil usurpers and she is the rightful queen, whom the populace will welcome with much rejoicing. She forgets about this for a bit when she becomes wrapped up in being Khaleesi, but it's still a big part of her character. It's only after she meets Barristan and he starts poking holes in her worldview that she realizes all the flaws in how she thinks of herself and starts trying to improve.

[Shadow of the Sun]

This a dead thread? While I disagree with DomaDoma's assessment, I was enjoying reading it.

[DomaDoma]

Only until I finish the reread plus the parts of book five I hadn't got to. Book five, I've decided, will be the test: if the thematic momentum toward "it is a difficult world we live in/we make it so" is, indeed, occurring in book four, and continued in book five, then I'll believe the people on this thread who are sincerely sticking around for good to prevail. If not, then no.

I have, at the moment, revised the central takeaway to "the nail that stands out in virtue gets hammered down." And yes, there is definitely a reason that villains dying does not change this.

[dps]

I haven't read the books yet, nor have I seen the TV show. People highly recommend the books to me, and I've been meaning to start reading them, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. That disclaimer out of the way, I'll say this: if the books are highly cynical, I don't see that as a flaw. I consider myself highly cynical, and I tend to see cynicism as a virtue. BUT--my view of cynicism isn't "Expect the worst out of people, and emulate that"; it's more, "you should expect the worst out of people, but that just makes it even more important that you should do your best".

[An Enemy Spy]

I haven't read the books yet, nor have I seen the TV show. People highly recommend the books to me, and I've been meaning to start reading them, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. That disclaimer out of the way, I'll say this: if the books are highly cynical, I don't see that as a flaw. I consider myself highly cynical, and I tend to see cynicism as a virtue. BUT--my view of cynicism isn't "Expect the worst out of people, and emulate that"; it's more, "you should expect the worst out of people, but that just makes it even more important that you should do your best".

Provided you aren't turned off by gruesome subject matter, I don't think you'll have a problem with any cynicism there is in the books. George's tone is more "being good is hard" than "being good is stupid".

[factotum]

George's tone is more "being good is hard" than "being good is stupid".

True, dat. Even more so when you consider that most of the characters who are out-and-out nasty types (Tywin Lannister, Cersei, plus a whole raft of more minor players) either come to sticky ends or end up with their oh-so-clever plans blowing up in their face.

[Aedilred]

I haven't read the books yet, nor have I seen the TV show. People highly recommend the books to me, and I've been meaning to start reading them, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. That disclaimer out of the way, I'll say this: if the books are highly cynical, I don't see that as a flaw. I consider myself highly cynical, and I tend to see cynicism as a virtue. BUT--my view of cynicism isn't "Expect the worst out of people, and emulate that"; it's more, "you should expect the worst out of people, but that just makes it even more important that you should do your best".

I think the majority opinion in this thread so far is that Doma's analysis is wanting. I can't quite put my finger on why it is so, but I think it's some combination of:

Having somehow formed a certain impression of the books which is affecting her perspective, and causing her to overlook, ignore or elide details or elements of the story which could contradict it;
Thinking the story should go to a certain place or have a certain moral if it is to be worthwhile, and being disappointed that it doesn't seem to be going there;
Passing judgment on the overall message of the series before it's finished (and indeed before finishing the available books), and basing her assessment ofthe whole on her own projections of what will occur in the last two and a half books, assuming that things will continue on their current path.

That last point may seem like a cheap way to deflect any criticism, but I think it's important. In classic story structure the moral or message of the story - if there is one - is only fully apparent once the story is concluded. Morality tales don't dispense their moral until after the story is finished. We talk about "story arcs" because they are to some extent arcs; there is generally a rise in conflict throughout the early and middle portions of the story, conflicts which are then resolved in the final act. It seems at times that Doma is instead plotting the story on a graph from its start to where it is, which is roughly where one would expect there to be "peak conflict" given the projected length of the novels, and assuming the line will continue on its current course and result in apocalypse rather than, as is more likely, curving back towards a more satisfactory conclusion. She's said indeed (iirc) that she's not going to bother finishing the series unless there's sufficient evidence by the end of Book 5 that "good will triumph" in the end, which to my mind is not entirely unlike walking out of a film two thirds of the way through because the bad guys are obviously going to win.

I would agree there is an element of cynicism in the books, but not a damning one even if you consider cynicism to be inherently bad. And in that respect it pales in comparison to some other works.

[Murk]

I think the majority opinion in this thread so far is that Doma's analysis is wanting. I can't quite put my finger on why it is so, but I think it's some combination of:

Having somehow formed a certain impression of the books which is affecting her perspective, and causing her to overlook, ignore or elide details or elements of the story which could contradict it;
Thinking the story should go to a certain place or have a certain moral if it is to be worthwhile, and being disappointed that it doesn't seem to be going there;
Passing judgment on the overall message of the series before it's finished (and indeed before finishing the available books), and basing her assessment ofthe whole on her own projections of what will occur in the last two and a half books, assuming that things will continue on their current path.


While I don't necessarily disagree with these points, I think it is important to note that all three of them go for those who disagree with Doma's analysis too.
The most fervent defenders of the series in this thread ("defenders" might be the wrong word, because I don't think Doma has ever stated that the series is bad for having a cynical message) also came with a pre-made impressions affecting their perspective; also think that since the books are worthwhile, they can not have certain messages; and are also (although maybe to a lesser extent) basing their judgement of the whole series on the books so far.

The two are not directly comparable, since one side is on the "defensive" so to say, but I think it is important to note that when you feel passionate about an unfinished series and want to do a thematic analysis, you are almost certain to run into one or more of these points, no matter which side you are on.

[dps]

I don't think Doma has ever stated that the series is bad for having a cynical message)

Perhaps not stated explicitly, but certainly very heavily implied, at the very least. Just from the Opening Post, we get lines such as:

"something deeply rotten"

"this guy is just screwing with us"

"so deeply wrong"

"The moral they quite explicitly bear is this: The world is awful. Be awful yourself, and at least it won't hurt so badly."

"hideous themes"

[An Enemy Spy]

"poisonous bricks"

And then there was the post where she listed the four reasons why anybody would like this series, one of which was reading it as porn(because nothing gets me hot and bothered like hundreds of pages of political intrigue) and one was because it "informs people's philosophy". No possibility that people might, I don't know, just enjoy it as a story. I sure am glad I have DomaDoma to tell me why I like these books. I was afraid I might be a thinking, reasoning adult for a moment there. But then I like these books, so I must be a slobbering neanderthal who hates the world and everyone in it.

[Murk]

I stand corrected, then. That does seem to imply a general dislike of the series.

Let me rephrase it to me personally: I agree that the themes and messages (if there are any) of the series are dominantly cynical, but I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. A book can have a message that I disagree with and still be a good book, or an enjoyable book, or at least an interesting book.

[DomaDoma]

In reference to your points: yes, I believe that the themes make the series bad. No, I don't necessarily need good to triumph - nothing wrong with a tragedy - but I do at least need the prospect that, if evil triumphs, it won't be presented as virtue's fault.

[lord_khaine]

And then there was the post where she listed the four reasons why anybody would like this series, one of which was reading it as porn(because nothing gets me hot and bothered like hundreds of pages of political intrigue) and one was because it "informs people's philosophy". No possibility that people might, I don't know, just enjoy it as a story. I sure am glad I have DomaDoma to tell me why I like these books. I was afraid I might be a thinking, reasoning adult for a moment there. But then I like these books, so I must be a slobbering neanderthal who hates the world and everyone in it.

Dont worry AES, we are not judging anyone on that subject!

I mean.. whatever floats your boat :smalltongue:

[factotum]

but I do at least need the prospect that, if evil triumphs, it won't be presented as virtue's fault.

Two things there:

1) The series isn't finished yet. We don't know if whoever triumphs in the end will be considered good or evil by yourself.

2) There are plenty of examples even in the story we have so far of evil not triumphing. Just look at Tywin and Cersei, as I said elsewhere--if you consider either of them to have triumphed (considering their current position in the story) then you have a very odd definition of that.

[pendell]

In reference to your points: yes, I believe that the themes make the series bad. No, I don't necessarily need good to triumph - nothing wrong with a tragedy - but I do at least need the prospect that, if evil triumphs, it won't be presented as virtue's fault.

Virtuous people have lost to vicious ones before, but not because Lies are better than Truth or being nasty works better than being nice.

How could anyone make a plausible story like that? As I've argued elsewhere, the rules of virtue do not exist in and of themselves; they exist for a reason. That reason is virtue promotes the general welfare and a better life for everyone more efficiently than vice does.

For instance, consider honor. A battlefield unit where everyone trusts each other is far less likely to break and rout in panic than a group of backstabbers who can't trust each other.

Consider theft. Nothing breaks up unit cohesion more than having a thief in the midst. Again, it violates the bond of trust.


If vice wins out over virtue in this series, it won't because it's superior in an evolutionary sense. It'll win out because the "virtuous" people applied the wrong virtues. The virtues they really need right now are vigilance instead of complacency, wisdom instead of rashness, courage instead of cowardice, humility (to join with others and submit to a king) instead of Pride (wanting to be king yourself, even if you have to burn half the seven kingdoms to attain the Iron Throne), and above all, courage and fortitude to withstand the storm.

The first phrase that really stuck in my mind from the series was "Child of Summer".

That's what the seven kingdoms are. They are the children of peace and prosperity; they may have the softer, gentler virtues but surviving Winter requires more than that. To survive a winter you will need tougher, sterner virtue than you need in the gentle days of sunlight.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the people of the Seven Kingdoms will rise to the test. Virtue will triumph over Vice, yes, but it's because Virtue has metaphorically learned to wear a coat in the cold.

They will win -- but they're still going to pay a price for their earlier complacency and neglect of the Watch. And so this will not be a happily ever after fairy tale ending. It will be bittersweet -- they will have survived but much that was fair and green will be lost forever. Such is the way of war, the original Negative Sum Game (http://thelawdictionary.org/negative-sum-game/).

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Aedilred]

I have to say, and this isn't specifically the fault of anyone in this thread, I'm getting thoroughly sick of the word "bittersweet" as applied to the ending of this series.

[pendell]

I have to say, and this isn't specifically the fault of anyone in this thread, I'm getting thoroughly sick of the word "bittersweet" as applied to the ending of this series.

Blame George R. R. Martin. That is his word to describe the intended ending (http://time.com/4101276/game-of-thrones-ending-george-r-r-martin/).

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Aedilred]

I know. But that means it gets dredged up every time anyone talks about the theoretical endings and it's starting to grate on my nerves.

Especially since, as I think I mentioned earlier (or possibly in the other ASoIaF thread) it's a word that could be used to describe, I think, the ending of the vast majority of modern fantasy stories. It tells us nothing, and yet it gets wheeled out like it's something profound.

I don't blame GRRM - what kind of author would give away the ending to his story years in advance? I blame the fans for descending upon it like a swarm of ravenous coyotes and building a whole mythos around it.

[russdm]

I think "Bittersweet" is being used because I don't think GRRM is going to mention that it will probably end with a few characters surviving, and that given ASOIAF world, that the ending won't actually make the world end up being any different. That would be a departure to how things are currently.

Lord of the Rings ended "Bittersweet" with Frodo heading off to the undying lands and the elves leaving forever. Most fantasy stories end in a similar fashion.

I frankly expect for more of a WH40K type ending or a WoD one since it seems to fit better. Will any actual named characters be still alive? Who's survival will actually help restore whatever the world looks like?

[An Enemy Spy]

"Bittersweet" is as uninformative an answer GRRM could have possibly given on how the series will end. What major fantasy series doesn't have a bittersweet ending? None I can think of off the top of my head. Even if absolutely everything goes right for the heroes from here on in the series, the books would still have a bittersweet ending because of everything they've already suffered through.

Not that I blame him of course. Asking an author how his series will end is a stupid question because what author is going to give it away? You don't sell books by giving away the plot. You tease it, and then let the speculation machine go into overdrive.

[Dienekes]

"Bittersweet" is as uninformative an answer GRRM could have possibly given on how the series will end. What major fantasy series doesn't have a bittersweet ending? None I can think of off the top of my head. Even if absolutely everything goes right for the heroes from here on in the series, the books would still have a bittersweet ending because of everything they've already suffered through.

Not that I blame him of course. Asking an author how his series will end is a stupid question because what author is going to give it away? You don't sell books by giving away the plot. You tease it, and then let the speculation machine go into overdrive.

I can think of at least one fantasy story whose end is downright depressing with all the main characters either dead, insane, dying, or trapped in an endless cycle at the whims of an immortal tyrant.

But sure, I get where you're coming from and mostly agree.

[Velaryon]

I take "bittersweet" to mean simply that it won't be an "and they lived happily ever after" ending (which of course not, since there hasn't been anything resembling that level of happiness since Ned first heard that Robert was coming to Winterfell), but that it won't be an "everyone dies and the world ends" kind of ending either. That leaves a whole lot of middle ground in between.