OOTS #1215 - The Discussion Thread

[arimareiji]

the only intelligent good character over 18 years old.

They're a critically-endangered species, because being good-aligned in GoT is an open invitation to murder. If you see a kitten about to get run over by a truck, either look the other way or make sure you have your life insurance paid up first.

[diplomancer]

They're a critically-endangered species, because being good-aligned in GoT is an open invitation to murder. If you see a kitten about to get run over by a truck, either look the other way or make sure you have your life insurance paid up first.

Which is unrealistic, and a teenager view of the world. Ned Stark died not because he was good (he's actually a traitor), but because he was stupid. You can be intelligent and good, but you have to be wise as a serpent. In LotR, the good guys defeat the bad guys, because they outsmart Sauron, and do something so good that Sauron could not fathom it.

(If Gandalf was like Ned Stark, he'd have thought the "honorable thing to do" to write a letter to Sauron informing his plans to send a Hobbit with the Ring to Mordor in order to destroy It)

[arimareiji]

Which is unrealistic, and a teenager view of the world. You can be intelligent and good, but you have to be wise as a serpent. In LotR, the good guys defeat the bad guys, because they outsmart Sauron.

I wonder to what degree GoT's popularity was shaped by being sick of treacly American "Good always wins because reasons" morality plays.

[Fyraltari]

My theory is that all Dwarves in Tolkien's world have facial hair

I think that bit is actually canon?

Except that Sauron was actually just Morgoth's lieutenant. Second-banana stuff. Kind of like how Shelob, the spider in the lair in the mountains in Mordor, was just a relatively minor child of Ungoliant, the real spider monster. You know, back in the bad old days.

Sauron was more clever than Morgoth and got closest to achieving world domination, though.

The Starks are universally stupid

That’s just untrue. They get thrown into situations they aren’t prepared for, that’s all. Hell, all in all they probably did a better job than one would expect.

with the exception of Arya (and Jon, who's just naive, but then he's not a Stark).

That looks arbitrary to me, what’s so special about these two that elevates them above the others? Also I love that « universally » only goes to three-fifths apparently.

Daenerys is a horrible tyrant and this was very obvious from the early stages.

You mean the parts where she had no authority at all? Also I can think of one tyrannical thing Daenerys does (crucifying the head Great Masters) but that anger-fueled décision aside she does her best to rule justly and for the benefit of her people which places her leagues ahead of most rulers in the serie. I’d say her worst trait would be her unwillingness to consider that her father could have done anything to deserve half the kingdom raising in arms against him.

Brienne is bland

That’s a matter of opinion.

James is interesting (but NOT likeable).

Same, I think later parts Jaime is prettt likeable.

My friends insisted I read the books, claiming it was "Tolkien for adults",

That’s just silly, Tolkien is for adults.

and so I did, but they are pretty awful (and, at best, Tolkien for horny teenagers)

Maybe your views are colored by the TV show because the sex in these books is generally pretty glossed over with less than a paragraph a scene. Martin seems much more interested in food-prob than actual porn.

It's a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (but Martin is definitely NOT an idiot)

Is it? I’ve got the time-honored « war is bad and shouldn’t be romanticized», but there’s also: « people should stop fighting about power and influence and deal with climate change the impending ecological catastrophe », « romanticizing the past is dangerous », « having principles is good, but life won’t always reward you for them so learn to recognize when to bend them », « power is only legitimate when wielded in the interest of the people », « society should recognize the individual strengths of each individual rather than insist everyone fits the same mould and reject those who don’t » and « people are more complicated than they seem, it’s very easy to frame oneself has the hero and others as the vilain but they’re probably doing the same with just as much reason ».

[Fyraltari]

They're a critically-endangered species, because being good-aligned in GoT is an open invitation to murder. If you see a kitten about to get run over by a truck, either look the other way or make sure you have your life insurance paid up first.

That’s just not true, cruel people are much more liable to be sacrified or murdered: Averys died because he was insanely sadistic, Renly died because he was greedy and willing to throw the kingdom into even more chaos because he’d like to play King, almost no one is weeping over the death of Tywin and his « dogs », it’s open season on the Freys, the Bolton are sitting on a powder keg juggling lot torches, pretty much everyone and their dog want Cersei dead, Rattleshirt was killed instead of Mance precisely because Mance is good and trustworthy and Rattleshirt is... not.

Meanwhile the Starks, Daenerys and Stannis, Dondarrion, The Tullys, the people who actually try, inspire loyalty even beyond the grave. The North remembers and all that.

I think people have latched on the shocking moments where a protagonist dies as a logical consequences of their understandable mistakes and concluded that this meant the book were childishly grim and claimed that being selfless was stupid when that’s not what’s in the books at all.

[Bunny Commando]

I think people have latched on the shocking moments where a protagonist dies as a logical consequences of their understandable mistakes and concluded that this meant the book were childishly grim and claimed that being selfless was stupid when that’s not what’s in the books at all.

Agree.
Westeros is a country descended into chaos because of a war of succession. And you have selfish, unscrupulous people profiting from the chaos - but there's a caveat: you betray the rule of hospitality and everyone will know not to trust you, you execute a man known to be honourable in a show of cruelty and everyone will think twice before showing mercy to you.
Cruelty and betrayal work as long as you are able to mantain your power, but in such a chaotic time you having no power is just a couple of lost battles away; and you may well die just because you crossed the wrong person. Those "smart", untrustworthy people die like flies and no one really cares.

[hroþila]

100% agreed with Fyraltari.

Also, saying that Sauron was "just" Morgoth's lieutenant strikes me as quite odd. Yes, he was Morgoth's lieutenant, and also among the most powerful Ainur himself. And not only was he more successful overall, but before losing the One Ring he was probably personally more powerful than Morgoth was by the end (this isn't canon but I think it's a reasonable interpretation).

[Mightymosy]

The Starks are universally stupid, with the exception of Arya (and Jon, who's just naive, but then he's not a Stark). Daenerys is a horrible tyrant and this was very obvious from the early stages. Brienne is bland, James is interesting (but NOT likeable). Tyrion is fun and Davos is, at least in the books published so far, the only intelligent good character over 18 years old.

My friends insisted I read the books, claiming it was "Tolkien for adults", and so I did, but they are pretty awful (and, at best, Tolkien for horny teenagers). It's a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (but Martin is definitely NOT an idiot)



Well, LotR is a sequel to a book with THIRTEEN dwarves, driving the whole plot forward. Tolkien probably felt that was enough Dwarvish representation, and was ok with toning down in LotR.



Sauron was Morgoth's servant, yes. But he was FAR more successful than Morgoth in actually ruling over (and corrupting) the children of Ilúvatar. Morgoth, being the most powerful created being of all, He who arises in Might spent most of his power corrupting Arda, and was barely able to defeat a ragtag alliance of Elves and Men. Sauron defeated the Valar (who had to "cheat" by calling on Eru). He truly is the BBEG of a BBEG but you have to look at all Tolkien's writings to realize that (specially the Akkalabeth, but others as well)

I am so happy that I never caved in, because within my friends everyone tried the same. Me and my GF were the only ones who didn't read or watch it, and then my GF finally watched one or two episodes. She had nightmares.


Honestly, from everything I have heard or read about it, it just seems like it sells because of sex and violence. And sexual violence. Just in a form that it is socially acceptable, since you watch it because of the oh so clever plot and it is on mainstream TV and everyone else watches it too.
Why not just watch porn instead and be honest with yourself? Certainly works for me.
No need to expose one's precious soul to the horrifying violence.
Heck, there are porn niches even if you are into S&M and the likes - just that these are FUN ("consensual") and not bloody violence.
Fake incest? I get the impression it is "en vogue" on porn portals these days, so you don't need GoT for that either.

To each their own, I can't find any reason to watch it.

I think that bit is actually canon?

Sauron was more clever than Morgoth and got closest to achieving world domination, though.

That’s just untrue. They get thrown into situations they aren’t prepared for, that’s all. Hell, all in all they probably did a better job than one would expect.

That looks arbitrary to me, what’s so special about these two that elevates them above the others? Also I love that « universally » only goes to three-fifths apparently.

You mean the parts where she had no authority at all? Also I can think of one tyrannical thing Daenerys does (crucifying the head Great Masters) but that anger-fueled décision aside she does her best to rule justly and for the benefit of her people which places her leagues ahead of most rulers in the serie. I’d say her worst trait would be her unwillingness to consider that her father could have done anything to deserve half the kingdom raising in arms against him.

That’s a matter of opinion.

Same, I think later parts Jaime is prettt likeable.


That’s just silly, Tolkien is for adults.

Maybe your views are colored by the TV show because the sex in these books is generally pretty glossed over with less than a paragraph a scene. Martin seems much more interested in food-prob than actual porn.

Is it? I’ve got the time-honored « war is bad and shouldn’t be romanticized», but there’s also: « people should stop fighting about power and influence and deal with climate change the impending ecological catastrophe », « romanticizing the past is dangerous », « having principles is good, but life won’t always reward you for them so learn to recognize when to bend them », « power is only legitimate when wielded in the interest of the people », « society should recognize the individual strengths of each individual rather than insist everyone fits the same mould and reject those who don’t » and « people are more complicated than they seem, it’s very easy to frame oneself has the hero and others as the vilain but they’re probably doing the same with just as much reason ».

I am surprised that YOU of all people need a book for any of these messages.

I'd actually wager the opposite (if there was a way to objectively measure this) :
I think that it takes a paragon of virtue of your obvious caliber to take these kind of messages from GoT.
Most people likely just "enjoy" the violence and get or don't get subtly influenced by it one way or the other.



PS: one might wonder why I talk so much about a work I haven't experienced first hand.
Truth to be told, I was curious enough to read through a GoT wiki (main characters, main plots etc.). I didn't exactly get nightmares like my GF, but I soooooooo much regretted reading it.
It is not like "war is bad", it is more "read about the awful sadistic ideas I have on how to torture and murder people. Oh, and I also pay attention to details a lot so my work is special"

[hroþila]

Not liking popular things is not a personality.

[Fyraltari]

100% agreed with Fyraltari.

Ayyy, validation! Also, permission to sig?

Honestly, from everything I have heard or read about it, it just seems like it sells because of sex and violence. And sexual violence. Just in a form that it is socially acceptable, since you watch it because of the oh so clever plot and it is on mainstream TV and everyone else watches it too.
Why not just watch porn instead and be honest with yourself? Certainly works for me.
No need to expose one's precious soul to the horrifying violence.
Heck, there are porn niches even if you are into S&M and the likes - just that these are FUN ("consensual") and not bloody violence.
Fake incest? I get the impression it is "en vogue" on porn portals these days, so you don't need GoT for that either.

To each their own, I can't find any reason to watch it.

I have never watched the show (nor do I intend to) but this really does not describe the books.

I am surprised that YOU of all people need a book for any of these messages.

"Why read so much[, asked Jon]
- [...] A mind needs book to stay sharp just as a sword needs a whetstone [answered Tyrion]".
I like books that makes me think, and these certainly do. I first read them in highschool and I didn't get everything at first (hell, I even managed to miss that Loras and Renly were in a relationship) but they stayed with me and just as with any other things in my life, I cannot honestly how much of me I am because of them. In the end all stories are about the same things: us and what we are doing with our lives and what we want to do with them.

Ultimately I enjoy stories the most when they understand what they are saying about the human condition and when I think that what they are saying has worth.

If I had to resume A Song of Ice and Fire in one sentence, it'd probably be something like "Yeah, life's tough, and hard, and messy, and complicated; so? Are you going to do something about it?" which I think is a very important lesson. The universe doesn't owe us ****, the world isn't fair, so it's our job to make it so and to work for what we want. A lesson I continually fail to apply in real life.

I'd actually wager the opposite (if there was a way to objectively measure this) :
I think that it takes a paragon of virtue of your obvious caliber to take these kind of messages from GoT.

I am not a paragon of virtue. I **** up just as much as anybody else and I have hurt people who didn't deserve it. I just think it best to try to see the bright side of things

Most people likely just "enjoy" the violence and get or don't get subtly influenced by it one way or the other.

Source?

PS: one might wonder why I talk so much about a work I haven't experienced first hand.
Truth to be told, I was curious enough to read through a GoT wiki (main characters, main plots etc.). I didn't exactly get nightmares like my GF, but I soooooooo much regretted reading it.
It is not like "war is bad", it is more "read about the awful sadistic ideas I have on how to torture and murder people. Oh, and I also pay attention to details a lot so my work is special"

Wandering a wiki does not give you an actual good idea of what a given work is like, just what its setting is like. Yes there is torture in the world of Ice and Fire but, you know what? It's almost never described in detail. We're never shown exactly what the Tickler, Qyburn or Ramsay Snow do to their victims (and in a sense that just make it more terrifying) likewise we are never shown a bonafide rape. A lot of scene where consent is questionnable (Daenerys and Jon snow both wanted to have sex with Drogo and Ygritte respectively, and these two didn't physically force themselves on them but despite how much both of our protagonists enjoyed it, it's clear that "no" wasn't realistically an option).

I understand how, skimming through a wiki, you'd get the idea that these books are torture porn, but they're just not.

[Mightymosy]

Ayyy, validation! Also, permission to sig?


I have never watched the show (nor do I intend to) but this really does not describe the books.



"Why read so much[, asked Jon]
- [...] A mind needs book to stay sharp just as a sword needs a whetstone [answered Tyrion]".
I like books that makes me think, and these certainly do. I first read them in highschool and I didn't get everything at first (hell, I even managed to miss that Loras and Renly were in a relationship) but they stayed with me and just as with any other things in my life, I cannot honestly how much of me I am because of them. In the end all stories are about the same things: us and what we are doing with our lives and what we want to do with them.

Ultimately I enjoy stories the most when they understand what they are saying about the human condition and when I think that what they are saying has worth.

If I had to resume A Song of Ice and Fire in one sentence, it'd probably be something like "Yeah, life's tough, and hard, and messy, and complicated; so? Are you going to do something about it?" which I think is a very important lesson. The universe doesn't owe us ****, the world isn't fair, so it's our job to make it so and to work for what we want. A lesson I continually fail to apply in real life.


I am not a paragon of virtue. I **** up just as much as anybody else and I have hurt people who didn't deserve it. I just think it best to try to see the bright side of things

Source?




Wandering a wiki does not give you an actual good idea of what a given work is like, just what its setting is like. Yes there is torture in the world of Ice and Fire but, you know what? It's almost never described in detail. We're never shown exactly what the Tickler, Qyburn or Ramsay Snow do to their victims (and in a sense that just make it more terrifying) likewise we are never shown a bonafide rape. A lot of scene where consent is questionnable (Daenerys and Jon snow both wanted to have sex with Drogo and Ygritte respectively, and these two didn't physically force themselves on them but despite how much both of our protagonists enjoyed it, it's clear that "no" wasn't realistically an option).

I understand how, skimming through a wiki, you'd get the idea that these books are torture porn, but they're just not.

1. Yes you are
(at least on this forum, for whatever that is worth. Show me one who is better?)
2. The wiki tells about a lot of horrifying torture and murder scenes. In detail. Did they really make up stuff that isn't in the books/movies?
Seems odd for a wiki to invent details not in the books.....
3. Source: my opinion, like I said. I never claimed to KNOW that, it is simply my interpretation.

[Fyraltari]

1. Yes you are
(at least on this forum, for whatever that is worth. Show me one who is better?)

That question doesn't make sense. Better how? There's certainly a few forum-goers I look up to for a reason or another, like Greywolf, hroÞila, Peelee or Kish (non-exhaustive list). But you can't really judge a person from what they say on a forum. If you can judge someone at all, that is.

2. The wiki tells about a lot of horrifying torture and murder scenes. In detail. Did they really make up stuff that isn't in the books/movies?
Seems odd for a wiki to invent details not in the books...

The torture is sometimes alluded to in a way that your imagination fills up the blanks (like say, how Procedure 110-Montauk (EDIT: WARNING! Thi page is almost legendary for how ****ed-up it is. It's a gem of horror writing, but it is NOT for the faint of heart. You have been warned.)is never described but we all have the same idea of what it involves)
but never actually described. In fact I don't think Martin would be confortable actually writing out action-for-action a torture scene, which is probably part of why theon spends all book 3 being tortured and also doesn't show up in book 3.

3. Source: my opinion, like I said. I never claimed to KNOW that, it is simply my interpretation.

But from your own admission you've only read a few articles on a wiki. You don't have enough data to make an informed opinion!
EDIT: Also trying to second-guess why people enjoy things is an exercise in futility and a bit insulting. Take them at their words.

[Mightymosy]

That question doesn't make sense. Better how? There's certainly a few forum-goers I look up to for a reason or another, like Greywolf, hroÞila, Peelee or Kish (non-exhaustive list). But you can't really judge a person from what they say on a forum. If you can judge someone at all, that is.

The torture is sometimes alluded to in a way that your imagination fills up the blanks (like say, how Procedure 110-Montauk (EDIT: WARNING! Thi page is almost legendary for how ****ed-up it is. It's a gem of horror writing, but it is NOT for the faint of heart. You have been warned.)is never described but we all have the same idea of what it involves)
but never actually described. In fact I don't think Martin would be confortable actually writing out action-for-action a torture scene, which is probably part of why theon spends all book 3 being tortured and also doesn't show up in book 3.

But from your own admission you've only read a few articles on a wiki. You don't have enough data to make an informed opinion!
EDIT: Also trying to second-guess why people enjoy things is an exercise in futility and a bit insulting. Take them at their words.

1. When you interact with people, you judge them, if only to decide whether you like them or how to value their opinion.
I don't think it is possible or even advisable not to do it (but it is extremely important to do it with caution. Never be to invested into a certain read, because you can be wrong very often. And that can hurt, either way.)
Actually, on point: you yourself named a couple examples, with one I would agree with a caveat, one I would agree halfway, one I didn't read enough to form and opinion, and one who is an example of what I said above. :-)

You are right that I can so far only judge the internet person of these people, but then again that is the one relevant, as it is the one I am interacting with.

2. Why did you provide a link that contains stuff I said I would hate to read?? Shall I click it and delve in horror, or what is your idea?

Sorry I don't get it.

3. A
My GF told me what happened in the two episodes she watched (I think someone getting cut his balls and penis were the least awful things if I remember right)
-> why should I NOT have enough information to form the opinion that I don't want to watch this?
This scene IS in the show.
There is NOT an equation that says "Well all the awesome Daeneris sex scenes cancel the violence out and the show is a net positive"
Good scenes and bad scenes BOTH engrain themselves in your memory, like it or not.
And I would rather NOT have horrifying memories, even at the cost of missing some awesome ones - because I can get OTHER awesome ones by watching awesome shows that have awesome scenes without torture horror

3 B
The wiki described how some couple burned their daughter, or how some other king or some such was burned and his son strangled watching. Another friend told me how one "house" used to skin their enemies.
Is that in the books or not?



Why should I expose myself to this nightmare fuel?
To know the world can be mean (or rather, humans) ? Didn't you and I know that beforehand? I mean, it is not as if the news didn't provide similar RL horror stories unfortunately do they not?

[Lethologica]

That the show (or the novel series) contains content you find unwatchable is one, perfectly understandable thing.

To conclude from there that the show's selling point is the unwatchable content, and that it has nothing else to offer unless interpreted by a mighty paragon of virtue, seems to be missing the mark.

[hroþila]

Ayyy, validation! Also, permission to sig?

Sure, go ahead.

That question doesn't make sense. Better how? There's certainly a few forum-goers I look up to for a reason or another, like Greywolf, hroÞila, Peelee or Kish (non-exhaustive list)

Awww

Why should I expose myself to this nightmare fuel?
To know the world can be mean (or rather, humans) ? Didn't you and I know that beforehand? I mean, it is not as if the news didn't provide similar RL horror stories unfortunately do they not?

You don't need to do anything. You don't need to like the books, or the show. You should just stop treating them (and a wiki, ffs) as the same work, judging them on hearsay*, or telling others what they should or should not take from the books.

*hearsay is enough to decide whether or not you're a priori interested enough to read the books or watch the show, but that's it

[Goblin_Priest]

Mushrooms, of course... But Tolkien does explicitly (if briefly) mention the vast slave-worked fields under Sauron's control, in the south of Mordor, and the system of roads that let goods and slaves be moved through that region and tributary lands to the east. He was aware of that logistical problem and felt that it should be called out.

Mushrooms and such. Worms. blind fish from underwater lakes, like what Gollum liked to eat.
Laughed, I did.

Sure, vast cave systems can support lone scavengers like Gollum. Absolutely no problem with that.

Vast societies of goblins or dwarves, though...??? Mushrooms don't grow all that fast. They aren't all that nutritious either. Cavefish have a similar problem, with low growth and all, and as a group they are considered endangered irl despite the lack of underground societies.

There's really zero reason to live underground like that, or that anything that does would be able to grow to any level of significance. You need a lot of space to feed a person above-ground, where you get the sun's blessings to maximize your crops, and you'd need a whole lot more space underground, where space, energy (sunlight), and nutrients are all very scarce resources. Then there's everything else. How do you light your living space? If wood (torches), then where the heck do you get all that wood? If darkvision, what does that imply? In D&D darkvision is very limited in distance and monochromatic. REALLY inconvenient to rely on 100% of the time. You'd still need full vision when working to know what the heck you are doing, a good chunk of the time anyways. And if you are running forges, again, a lot of combustibles. Same for cooking. Coal can only go so far if 100% of your day-to-day activities for every single citizen require it.

To be clearer, I'm thinking of stuff like Moria, and its analogues from other settings, though it'd also apply to that other dwarf city that Smog had taken over. These things are gigantic, no way a small society could have built them. But there's also no way these spaces could have fed such large numbers.

Imports of food from the surface, either by purchase or slave labor, seems like a huge stretch. Why be 100% dependent on others for food, with what are probably unreliable import routes, when it would be both cheaper and safer to grow at least a good part of it yourself?

There's also the labor issues... building on the surface is easy. Excavating these vast mountain kingdoms... not so much. Sure, if the caves had lots of natural riches, like gold and gems, it's plausible that a society would build itself around them. But, well, precisely... AROUND them. Not inside the freaking mountain. Stone is hard, it's heavy. Much more economic, convenient, safe, and comfortable to just work underground, but live aboveground.

[Fyraltari]

1. When you interact with people, you judge them, if only to decide whether you like them or how to value their opinion.
I don't think it is possible or even advisable not to do it (but it is extremely important to do it with caution. Never be to invested into a certain read, because you can be wrong very often. And that can hurt, either way.)
Actually, on point: you yourself named a couple examples, with one I would agree with a caveat, one I would agree halfway, one I didn't read enough to form and opinion, and one who is an example of what I said above. :-)

These are people I enjoy interacting with and whose opinions I respect and who I think do better than me in some qualities, but I do not know wether they are « better » than me, you or anybody. I have the smallest of insights in their lives so how could I call them « parangons of virtue » or whatever?

You are right that I can so far only judge the internet person of these people, but then again that is the one relevant, as it is the one I am interacting with.

So you’ve only judged me on my internet persona and from that you’ve concluded that I have a different reading of a series of book that you’ve never read yourself. Do you see why that sounds illogical.

2. Why did you provide a link that contains stuff I said I would hate to read?? Shall I click it and delve in horror, or what is your idea?

It’s an example of how a thing can both be in a text but not be in it as well. This page is very-well crafted to plant a particular picture in the reader’s mind but that picture is only suggested never described nor even explicitly stated.

3. A
My GF told me what happened in the two episodes she watched (I think someone getting cut his balls and penis were the least awful things if I remember right)

I am not talking about the show and I don’t care about it. The books have no description of genital mutilation (though it is mentionned as a punition for rapists and one character has a line that may be read as meaning it happened off-page to another character).

why should I NOT have enough information to form the opinion that I don't want to watch this?
This scene IS in the show.
There is NOT an equation that says "Well all the awesome Daeneris sex scenes cancel the violence out and the show is a net positive"
Good scenes and bad scenes BOTH engrain themselves in your memory, like it or not.
And I would rather NOT have horrifying memories, even at the cost of missing some awesome ones - because I can get OTHER awesome ones by watching awesome shows that have awesome scenes without torture horror

I don’t care about the show. And as I’ve said, the only kind of porn in these books is food porn (long overly detailed description of what the characters are eating).

The wiki described how some couple burned their daughter

No daughter-burning in the books.

or how some other king or some such was burned and his son strangled watching. Another friend told me how one "house" used to skin their enemies.
Is that in the books or not?

These happen off-screen, in the backstory or as events related by second-hand sources. So they are in the books but they are not [i]in[/in] the books. If you see my meaning.
For example there’s a scene where a guy is tortured, the tormentor takes out his knife and starts cutting skin. We then immediately skip a dozen hours as the torture is finished and the viewpoint character thinks how horrible watching this was. So the torture happened and it was bad, but we, the readers, did not have to read a torture scene.

Why should I expose myself to this nightmare fuel?
To know the world can be mean (or rather, humans) ? Didn't you and I know that beforehand? I mean, it is not as if the news didn't provide similar RL horror stories unfortunately do they not?

You don’t have to expose yourself to anything, but your idea of what the books are like is warped and you have no business making proclamations about why people enjoy them.

I know enough about the Twilight series to know that I have no interest reading it. Therefore, I’ll leave discussion of these books to people who’ve actually read them.


Also, here’s a lot of good that happens in these books as provided by TvTropes.

Sure, go ahead.

Thank you.

Awww

Well it’s true.

You don't need to do anything. You don't need to like the books, or the show. You should just stop treating them (and a wiki, ffs) as the same work, judging them on hearsay*, or telling others what they should or should not take from the books.

*hearsay is enough to decide whether or not you're a priori interested enough to read the books or watch the show, but that's it

Exactly.

[Mightymosy]

Sure, go ahead.

Awww

You don't need to do anything. You don't need to like the books, or the show. You should just stop treating them (and a wiki, ffs) as the same work, judging them on hearsay*, or telling others what they should or should not take from the books.

*hearsay is enough to decide whether or not you're a priori interested enough to read the books or watch the show, but that's it

1. So the books, unlike the show, does Not contain excessive violence?
Is that what you and Fyra are trying to tell me?

If so, good. Because neither of my friends who suggested the series made that kind of remark) they just said the show differed in the storyline and final season was crap for plot reasons, they didn't say that there was a difference in the violence)

2.where do I tell other people what they SHOULD take from the books?
Sorry if I gave this impression. My intent was to say that I GUESS why they read it and what they take from it.
If Fyra for example enjoyed it as a reminder that the real life is so mean, ok, go him, and if that makes him try to be a better person, go him and go R R Martin.

For me it is a tough sell, but as I said in the beginning: to each their own.

I don't claim 100% certainty on anything I said about that, it is just speculation. I can be wrong about that (but also people can be wrong about their own motivations - I am quite certain I might have argued exactly like Fyra when I was 16-25 or so, but now I think differently, and I think differently of how and why I liked or disliked things, because I have learnt more about the world any myself. It would be really interesting to have the same discussion with Fyra in 10 years and see how he feels then. Because I just genuinely think he is one of the nicest guys here. Even if he himself dislikes ranking people like that, and I respect that, these are my feelings and I stand by them)

[Bunny Commando]

1. So the books, unlike the show, does Not contain excessive violence?
Is that what you and Fyra are trying to tell me?

If so, good. Because neither of my friends who suggested the series made that kind of remark) they just said the show differed in the storyline and final season was crap for plot reasons, they didn't say that there was a difference in the violence)

Depends what you mean with "excessive"; the books certainly contain violence, but IMHO there's no gratuitous violence.
E.g. in the show there's a scene where a sadistic character brutally kills two prostitutes; in the books there's no such scene but there are details and comments from other characters and from them you may infer that this particular character has sadistic tendencies.

[hroþila]

"Maybe you'll understand when you're older, kid" is the most condescending thing I've read here in a while, Mightymosy.

[understatement]

Depends what you mean with "excessive"; the books certainly contain violence, but IMHO there's no gratuitous violence.
E.g. in the show there's a scene where a sadistic character brutally kills two prostitutes; in the books there's no such scene but there are details and comments from other characters and from them you may infer that this particular character has sadistic tendencies.

Agree. The books are surprisingly not as violent as their reputation would show. I think it stems from the shock value -- there's moments of very intense violence, usually in a handful of words, and it sometimes happens to demographics you don't expect it to happen to. Most of the longer excessive details mostly center on food, clothing, setting, and

Spoiler: 5th book

Show

Obviously, Dany's dysentery.

[danielxcutter]

...Actually, was the wiki you saw the "proper" one? Even not including things like article vandalism, I've looked into wikis that I didn't immediately realize were for fan creations instead of canon stuff.

Please tell me if that sounds condescending, because I honestly have no idea how to word that better.

[arimareiji]

Sure, vast cave systems can support lone scavengers like Gollum. Absolutely no problem with that.

Vast societies of goblins or dwarves, though...??? Mushrooms don't grow all that fast. They aren't all that nutritious either. Cavefish have a similar problem, with low growth and all, and as a group they are considered endangered irl despite the lack of underground societies.

There's really zero reason to live underground like that, or that anything that does would be able to grow to any level of significance. You need a lot of space to feed a person above-ground, where you get the sun's blessings to maximize your crops, and you'd need a whole lot more space underground, where space, energy (sunlight), and nutrients are all very scarce resources. (snip)

Life requires the constant input of energy to fight entropy.

Look at life somewhere else that has practically no sunlight for photosynthesis, deep on the ocean floor. Very limited. Generally falls into relying on energy that can be 1) scavenged from detritus that falls in, 2) collected from extreme geothermal conditions (i.e. volcanic vents). Not that much energy is going to just fall into deep cave systems, and geothermal is only going to be able to drive a fairly short food chain.

Humans like to think we're the pinnacle of creation, the most important organism. But without photosynthetic organisms to drive and/or be the food chain, we don't exist.

[Fyraltari]

There's really zero reason to live underground like that

Goblins find sunlight painful and it turns trolls to stone, so I'd say they've got a pretty good reason to live underground. I got nothing for the dwarves, though.

1. So the books, unlike the show, does Not contain excessive violence?
Is that what you and Fyra are trying to tell me?

That rather depends on what you mean by "contain excessive violence". There's no graphic description of someone being beaten to a pulp, for example.

If Fyra for example enjoyed it as a reminder that the real life is so mean, ok, go him, and if that makes him try to be a better person, go him and go R R Martin.

For me it is a tough sell, but as I said in the beginning: to each their own.

I enjoy these books because they have great character work, manage to make me cry or laugh or send shivers down my spine when they intend to, they're clever, they're engaging and they're never boring.

but also people can be wrong about their own motivations - I am quite certain I might have argued exactly like Fyra when I was 16-25 or so, but now I think differently, and I think differently of how and why I liked or disliked things, because I have learnt more about the world any myself. It would be really interesting to have the same discussion with Fyra in 10 years and see how he feels then.

I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Because I just genuinely think he is one of the nicest guys here. Even if he himself dislikes ranking people like that, and I respect that, these are my feelings and I stand by them)

Thank you, I try.

[KorvinStarmast]

Except that Sauron was actually just Morgoth's lieutenant.

Nope.
Not in LoTR. (The Silmarillion was published decades later)
Sauron was the evil dark lord who was going to take over the whole world in the Third Age.
The BBEG to end all BBEG's, in that story and in that world.

@Goblin_Priest: I am pretty sure that the goblins didn't only inhabit the caves, they just lived there. I suspect that they hunted for quite a bit of their nourishment. They lived in sparsely populated mountains.

This led to the dwarves breeding well below replacement rate, especially after their losses in various wars and to dragon attacks, and led to their eventual extinction (the sub-race known asNoegyth Nibin or "Petty-Dwarves" had already died out in the First Age).

Yeah, it's in the Original LoTR, in the Appendicies IIRC.

The Starks are universally stupid, with the exception of Arya (and Jon, who's just naive, but then he's not a Stark).

Isn't he Ned's sister's son by way of the Targaryan prince?

Spoiler: snowfall

Show

That makes him, I think, Ned's nephew and thus a Stark or a Half Stark, right? IIRC, Ned's sister was going to marry Robert Baratheon but she actually loved the prince and he loved her back, hence Jon Snow ...

No wonder Ned took care of him, and cared for him. There's a blood connection. (Which Cat never figured out)

It's a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (but Martin is definitely NOT an idiot)

It started well, for sure, and GRRM can just say "Cha Ching" each time he deposits the next check. Agree Not an idiot.

Westeros is a country descended into chaos because of a war of succession.

When I first read it, my instinct was "variation on War of the Roses as well as the Chaos of Empress Matilde/Stephen" but he may have had other inspirations as well, like the Byzantine Empire and such.

Cruelty and betrayal work as long as you are able to mantain your power, but in such a chaotic time you having no power is just a couple of lost battles away; and you may well die just because you crossed the wrong person. Those "smart", untrustworthy people die like flies and no one really cares.

Yeah, there's a lot of "too clever by half" going on.

That the show (or the novel series) contains content you find unwatchable is one, perfectly understandable thing.

Plenty of folks didn't care for it, my wife included.

E.g. in the show there's a scene where a sadistic character brutally kills two prostitutes; in the books there's no such scene but there are details and comments from other characters and from them you may infer that this particular character has sadistic tendencies.

I agree with your take on this. The TV folks went a little over the top in more than one instance.

Spoiler: One particular event that did not sit well with me

Show

Stannis's daughter being burned at the stake was, in my view, both done badly and was in incredibly bad taste)

[Fyraltari]

Nope.
Not in LoTR. (The Silmarillion was published decades later)
Sauron was the evil dark lord who was going to take over the whole world in the Third Age.
The BBEG to end all BBEG's, in that story and in that world.

Even in Lord of the Rings, it's mentionned that Sauron used to work under the Great Ennemy Morgoth.

[Metastachydium]

Life requires the constant input of energy to fight entropy.

Look at life somewhere else that has practically no sunlight for photosynthesis, deep on the ocean floor. Very limited. Generally falls into relying on energy that can be 1) scavenged from detritus that falls in, 2) collected from extreme geothermal conditions (i.e. volcanic vents). Not that much energy is going to just fall into deep cave systems, and geothermal is only going to be able to drive a fairly short food chain.

Humans like to think we're the pinnacle of creation, the most important organism. But without photosynthetic organisms to drive and/or be the food chain, we don't exist.

(And yet, all those nice little plants can't seem to get the respect that would be due.)

[KorvinStarmast]

(And yet, all those nice little plants can't seem to get the respect that would be due.)

They get a bit more respect than one might suppose.
Cows and sheep eat some of those plans, so in righteous vengeance humans slay the cows and sheep ... and to not be wasteful, then make food and shoes out of them.

[Fyraltari]

Isn't he Ned's sister's son by way of the Targaryan prince?

Spoiler: snowfall

Show

That makes him, I think, Ned's nephew and thus a Stark or a Half Stark, right? IIRC, Ned's sister was going to marry Robert Baratheon but she actually loved the prince and he loved her back, hence Jon Snow ...

No wonder Ned took care of him, and cared for him. There's a blood connection. (Which Cat never figured out)

This is unconfirmed but widely assumed to be true because that's what the show went for and Martin once said the showrunners had figured it out, and the circumstancial evidence (Ned's flashabcks, magic visions, the Reeds' story, the other explanation not quite making sense, ...) points towards it. However, Jon would still be a bastard because Rhaegar was married at the time to Elia of Dorne and so couldn't have married Lyanna, at least not in the eyes of society. So Jon would still be a Snow. Or a Waters or a Sand depending on how exactly the naming convention for bastards work (father's from the Crowlands, mother's from the north, kid born in Dorne).

Also the love story between Lyanna and Raheagar is unclear. Lyanna didn't love Robert but Rhaegar seemed perfectly happy with Elia, except that he seemed determined to have three children to fulfill the "Prince that was Promised/the dragon has three heads" prophecy (which also suggests he wanted Jon to be a girl) so he may have seen Lyanna as just a suitable mother for his kid. Also the official story is still that he kidnapped and raped her, that doesn't seem to fit his established character but there's a definite "nostalgia goggles" effect surrounding his character. The only one with a chance to know the truth is Howland Reed (last person alive whow as there when Lyanna died) and he ain't telling.

[Quizatzhaderac]

I wonder to what degree GoT's popularity was shaped by being sick of treacly American "Good always wins because reasons" morality plays.

I think that's a big part of it. In a lot of stories, being good means a happy ending and evil means an unhappy ending.

In SoF&I being good and dumb doesn't ensure your safety; maybe in times of peace, but not in the fires of war.

Being smart and evil delays the consequences of your actions.

Being dumb and evil doesn't lead to a long life.

I am not a paragon of virtue.

Exactly what a paragon of virtue would say!