A Song of Ice and Fire
discussion
Wheel of Time or A Song of Ice & Fire?
message 151:
by
Will
(new)
May 19, 2016 04:34AM
ASoIaF is no where near Spartacus level. You haven't seen it so I don't know how you could come to that conclusion.
reply
|
flag
Will wrote: "Stannis turned out that way because he believed in Melisandre and the Lord of Light and was influenced by that belief. Religion can cause good people to do some terrible things."It doesn't matter. The producers only made him that way because they didn't like him, so they put the original material aside to peg him as a villain because of personal dislike. Then they kill him off. In the books it obvious he didn't give a shit about the lord of light and was just using it to gain support of a very powerful priestess.
And to those who keep saying that GRRM uses sex to keep readers hooked are wrong. It's not like sex scenes are all too frequent like in the show. It's not like everyone just hangs out in a brothel all day then tear each other apart. Hell, violence isn't really frequent until the end of the books for the big epic battle. If anything, according to what I hear that is, WoT is more violent. More fights/battles is an argument towards WoT, yet people use violence as an argument against Asoiaf. What is it, is there a lack of blood or something? Because if there is, that's plain out dumb. You can't have battles without blood being spilled everywhere unless it's some kids book where all the enemies are just hollow figures that disappear when they die or all enemies get knocked over and run away like in pretty much every Disney movie with battles.
D'Mitri wrote: "Will wrote: "Stannis turned out that way because he believed in Melisandre and the Lord of Light and was influenced by that belief. Religion can cause good people to do some terrible things."It d..."
I agree! Rand is in his room dripping with blood and covered in shards of mirror and glass sticking in his skin, Padan Fain is forced to sleep in a kettle! That seems pretty brutal to me. There are way more battles in WoT, but I think violence in both of them is really cool. I have no problem with it at all.
Emma wrote: "May I ask what makes ASOIAF series go downhill after book 3? (Bare in mind I'm only in book 3 at the moment)"absolutely nothing! Feast is probably my 2nd favorite book of the whole series (behind A Game of Thrones). It is just much different than books two and three as they start to expand the world, we see the iron isalnds more, Dorne more, and a lot of new places in Essos. I think Clash of Kings is the weakest in the series minus Blackwater but I love them all. I do not understand why people think it goes downhill, probably cause of Penny! haha
D'Mitri wrote: "If anything, according to what I hear that is, WoT is more violent."I'll just reply by pointing out that renowned children's book The Polar Express is, if anything, according to what I hear that is, the most violent book ever written.
Marc wrote: "Emma wrote: "May I ask what makes ASOIAF series go downhill after book 3? (Bare in mind I'm only in book 3 at the moment)"absolutely nothing! Feast is probably my 2nd favorite book of the whole s..."
But I like Penny :( lol
Emma wrote: "Marc wrote: "Emma wrote: "May I ask what makes ASOIAF series go downhill after book 3? (Bare in mind I'm only in book 3 at the moment)"absolutely nothing! Feast is probably my 2nd favorite book o..."
haha me too! She's just a complaint I hear a lot from friends who read the series. I personally love the hilarious Quentyn Martell storyline in Dance.
Marc wrote: "Emma wrote: "Marc wrote: "Emma wrote: "May I ask what makes ASOIAF series go downhill after book 3? (Bare in mind I'm only in book 3 at the moment)"absolutely nothing! Feast is probably my 2nd fa..."
Omg, I was yelling so much at Quentyn in his last chapter. WHY WOULD YOU? WHYYYYYYY??? Stupid child.
Will wrote: "Also, GRRM does describe how the rest of the world eats, and it's barely and with whatever scraps they can manage."I don't care about food descriptions, but this is just poor thinking, Will. In the middle ages, people spent a huge percentage of their day dealing with arranging for food and very little of their day on sex or violence. More time was spent bringing water back from the local well than it was fighting or having sex. That Martin casually spends almost no time on the food (which is the actual reality part) and tons of time on the sex (which is the part that is a small part of anyone's day) is absolutely proof that none of it is about realism.
It's about being edgy for the sake of marketing and sating his own lusty sensibilities. I have no problem with that, mind you, but surely you can understand how disingenuous it is to suggest that he has some noble ambition behind it when he clearly ignores almost everything that made up the day of almost everyone in a world such as he describes. Their real problems are almost entirely ignored. Martin, like most storytellers, eschews the real in favor of the story. That's fine. Professional storytellers are supposed to spin a good yarn, and whether something is "realistic" is not a major factor in that.
Even in your example, people who "eat barely and only whatever scraps they can manage" are people whose entire life is about finding another meal. And the lives of almost everyone they know would have been the same. It's true it wouldn't be very interesting to read a story about a bunch of rich assholes bickering over gold while almost every actual person starved, but that would be real. Every single Lord and Lady would have been (in the world he built) a terrible piece of filth watching their own people die while they reach for amusements. The Starks, Dany, Jon Snow, Tyrion, all monsters. That's real. That's not what we see.
The reason we don't see that is that it probably wouldn't make a very good story, but that doesn't change the fact that from the jump, Martin discarded "realism" in favor of titillating violence and sex. Haven't you noticed that he only tries to "be real" on the things that are "edgy" and work well for marketing purposes and ignores anything real that doesn't do that?
Oh, he's all about realism when it means he can get the buzz that comes with surprise killing a big character, but not when it comes to anything really real.
Also, Dragons. Seriously, Will. Dragons are not "realistic." Surely you, of all people, are not arguing that a show/series/book where people are raised from the dead with some regularity is a world which is "realistic."
This series is "dark and real" the same way the Nolan Batman movies were "dark and real", which is to say that they aren't at all. Nothing wrong with good old made up stories for entertainment value, but I really don't understand the desire by fans to insist that Martin has this noble desire to tell it like it was and that he has to show sex and violence because he's being "real." Poor Martin forced by reality into showing sex that he doesn't want to have to show, but he just has to because he's willing to sacrifice that much to make his story "realistic." By some coincidence, the only things he chooses to be "real" about are always the things that generate buzz and controversy.
I'm not saying women weren't raped in the middle ages. I'm saying that they spent more time chasing the escaped livestock or trying to find some roots for the stew than in being raped. That's real, even if it's not an interesting story.
I like both series. Neither are "realistic" and the evaluation of both comes down to personal taste and enjoyment.
Daniel, that's silly. He's writing epic fantasy, no one wants to read about the farmer in the story that doesn't really interact with anyone important. Those facts are still mentioned in the book, but there were also still battles and wars then, and that's the story he's writing about.
the stores of food, the lack of food, the burning of food, and the excess of food are all major points throughout all 5 books, I have no clue what you're talking about.
If you want to read good historical non-fiction, there are quite a lot that GRRM recommends and uses as sources for using real events from the past, and then inserting them into a fantastic world with dragons, and then say "I wonder what they would have done instead if there was magic."That was his basic process.
Just saying, there were some absolutely ruthless leaders during the middle ages. This article suggests that GRRM downplays it:http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/they_...
Will wrote: "Daniel, that's silly. He's writing epic fantasy, no one wants to read about the farmer in the story that doesn't really interact with anyone important. Those facts are still mentioned in the book, but there were also still battles and wars then, and that's the story he's writing about."Exactly. I know you mostly just repeated my post back to me but in different words, but either way, it sounds like we agree now. He dropped "realism" in favor of spinning a good yarn. I agree that he should have. It sounds like we both now agree that it's not "realistic."
Daniel wrote: "Will wrote: "Also, GRRM does describe how the rest of the world eats, and it's barely and with whatever scraps they can manage."I don't care about food descriptions, but this is just poor thinkin..."
Because that stuff is exciting. It is realistic in most aspects. In aGoT, most sex scenes were with Dany, because he is living with barbaric brutes who are practically animals. And the other sex scenes are just casual meet ups. They aren't humping each other at the dinner table, are they? And Shae? She's a prostitute. It's her job. The book has realistic characters, politics, and (for the most part) story. So what, there's dragons and ice zombies and resurrection, but if the real world had those things, it would practically be Asoiaf. And I don't feel that people would be resurrected left and right. I mean, you wouldn't want to bring back your friend if you knew they wouldn't be the same. I know I wouldn't. It would be like pet semetery.
D'Mitri wrote: "Because that stuff is exciting."I agree. It sounds like you and Will and I all agree. Martin decreases truth value (leaves out more realistic things which are not entertaining or good for marketing) in favor of increasing entertainment value (as Will said "no one wants to read about that"). That's the job of the professional storyteller, so I'm not criticizing him for it at all. I'm saying he was right to do it. The story is better because it is less realistic.
I don't understand your point at all, Daniel.You say things like "It's about being edgy for the sake of marketing and sating his own lusty sensibilities" when it's clearly not about marketing at all. He started writing this in 1991 after he previously failed as an author and then spent a long time in mainstream TV writing. So after that he wrote a story that he wanted to read with no restrictions like a limit on the number of character's etc. He then wanted to write epic fantasy, but he didn't want it to be, as he describes it, a bunch of good guys in white against a bunch of bad monsters in black.
That's the part of the world he is trying to instill realism. He is very much inputting more of reality in there than standard epic and high fantasy. There are no perfectly good or bad characters. I never said dragons were realistic too. It's about how realistic characters would react in a world with magic and dragons.
My comment that you quoted as what you were responding to doesn't seem to have any relevancy to what you are saying and wasn't contradicted by your reply.
The comment I'm referring to is "Also, GRRM does describe how the rest of the world eats, and it's barely and with whatever scraps they can manage."What I meant there is that in the series, the people have it pretty bad and only manage to scrape by, generally, because the whole of Westeros is at war with each other. All the men and some women are off killing each other. I didn't mean that Martin doesn't spend much time describing how the people eat and get by (which he still does a fair amount of, actually).
Will wrote: "You say things like "It's about being edgy for the sake of marketing and sating his own lusty sensibilities" when it's clearly not about marketing at all."How is it clear that "it's not about marketing at all"? If it weren't for marketing or his own lusty sensibilities, why would he only use the aspects of "realistic" things that are good for marketing and sating his own lusty sensibilities? He doesn't feel the need to be "realistic" about anything that isn't easily explained by marketing and personal preference. The more noble sounding "he does it to be real" doesn't hold water once we realize that he discards any aspect of realism which doesn't fit the bill described above.
If he only is "real" when it's good for marketing, buzz, controversy, and his own lusty sensisbilites, then he isn't after being "real" at all. Or, at least, he's only being selectively real which is the same thing as saying he doesn't care about being realistic for it's own sake. Logically, there's just no support for the idea that he has any such high ambitions as "realism" and bountiful evidence that he waves sex and violence at people because they talk about stories that do so. He does it well, so more people read his than other authors who use the same tricks.
Will wrote: "That's the part of the world he is trying to instill realism."
I agree. He uses realism when it's convenient for his purposes as a story teller. Which is a far cry from Realism as an actual goal in and of itself. Just because the story has the sun in it (the sun is real) doesn't mean that it's a realistic story.
Will wrote: "My comment that you quoted as what you were responding to doesn't seem to have any relevancy to what you are saying and wasn't contradicted by your reply. "
I'm not sure what quote you're talking about. I quoted you about how no one wants to read that, but it wasn't intended to contradict your reply. It was an acknowledgment that we both agree about it. We both agree that he left out more realistic aspects of the world for purely entertainment reasons ("no one wants to read that"). We agree.
Or maybe that's not the quote you mean. If not, just let me know which quote you mean.
Daniel wrote: "D'Mitri wrote: "Because that stuff is exciting."I agree. It sounds like you and Will and I all agree. Martin decreases truth value (leaves out more realistic things which are not entertaining or ..."
Well, you got to admit, the realistic parts are pretty good. I like the fantasy and the realism equality.
"How is it clear that "it's not about marketing at all"?"So you are saying he is writing the story because he wants to write about the things that he wants to write about. Yes.
No one is calling it realistic as in "wow this whole world is like real life!" It's realistic in the context of the genre he is writing compared to typical epic and high fantasy. It's realistic like "wow, I could totally imagine these characters existing and doing similar things in our world but without the dragons and magic bits."
"Or maybe that's not the quote you mean. If not, just let me know which quote you mean."
You wrote:
"Will wrote: "Also, GRRM does describe how the rest of the world eats, and it's barely and with whatever scraps they can manage."
I don't care about food descriptions, but this is just poor thinking, Will. In the middle ages, people spent a huge percentage of their day dealing with arranging for food and very little of their day on sex or violence. More time was spent bringing water back from the local well than it was fighting or having sex. That Martin casually spends almost no time on the food (which is the actual reality part) and tons of time on the sex (which is the part that is a small part of anyone's day) is absolutely proof that none of it is about realism."
What exactly is it about saying that the common people generally struggle to get by in the book series that is poor thinking and have anything to do with what you respond with?
Hey here's a question. So if it is true that the reason why the WOT books are dragged out into such a huge series for the sake of world building, aren't books 4&5 of Asoiaf doing the same thing? Introducing the rest of westeros. And showing how the conflict effects the story when the others seep through the wall
Will wrote: "The comment I'm referring to is "Also, GRRM does describe how the rest of the world eats, and it's barely and with whatever scraps they can manage.""Oh, I see. I'm sorry for the confusion.
I was looking at that comment in context of the conversation about realism in the story from the thread up to that point. You were responding to someone else pointing out that food is one area that is not talked about in proportion to what anything truly realistic would talk about. You were responding that you think it's realistic and giving an example of how they do talk about food. The poor thinking part I was referring to had to do with whether that made it realistic. I thought you were saying (and it seems perhaps I misunderstood your point) that you consider the series to be realistic because of the sex and violence and that Martin only uses it because he wants the story to be real.
My point was that he seems to only use realistic aspects when it's convenient, which makes it unlikely that he is being realistic because he wants to "tell it like it is" instead of using sex and violence (under the guise of "realism") to get readers and viewers. By claiming "realism", he can try to have his cake and eat it, too.
For instance, you were using the nuanced characters (not just plain black and white) as a key example of him being realistic. But of course, the driving forces of the story and the characters that do the heavy lifting are plain black and white. Jon and Dany are always good. They make mistakes, but they are always sort of pure of spirit. They mean well. And the white walkers are always evil. Pure evil. It's plain black and white. He just stuck some fuzzy characters between the same extreme black and white that is always there in this type of story.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he did. It makes the story much more interesting in my opinion, but it's not like he made all the characters realistic out of a desire to "tell the truth". He kept the same extreme black and white, but added some more shaded characters further down the totem pole.
I was only ever disputing whether it was realistic and that's what my comment about poor thinking referred to.
To be clear, there's no poor thinking in that comment I quoted; only my poor assumption about how you'd take the pull quote I used. I should have pulled quotes from earlier on, too, so that it was clear I was talking about comments throughout the conversation instead of just pulling the from most recent comment and assuming you'd know what I meant. Since a bit of time passed during this whole discussion, it was a poor choice on my part. Not doing so made my comment unnecessarily confusing.
At any rate, if that's not clear, let me know.
D'Mitri wrote: "Well, you got to admit, the realistic parts are pretty good. I like the fantasy and the realism equality."True. There is much to love in those stories.
D'Mitri wrote: "So if it is true that the reason why the WOT books are dragged out into such a huge series for the sake of world building, aren't books 4&5 of Asoiaf doing the same thing? Introducing the rest of westeros. And showing how the conflict effects the story when the others seep through the wall"I don't consider the WOT books to have been dragged out at all. This is my perception, but others feel differently. The same is true with Martin. My experience of it seems clear that he is dragging the books out pointlessly at the readers' expense. Others do not feel that way.
You'll find lots of people on both sides of the issue on both series. Actually, you'll find the same dispute on almost every major fantasy series. It's just a subjective preference kind of thing.
Okay, so Shawn said, "He mentions a LOT about what the nobles eat.. and never mentions how the entire rest of the kingdoms are staying alive."I was referencing that point when I said, "Also, GRRM does describe how the rest of the world eats, and it's barely and with whatever scraps they can manage."
I mean, GRRM does describe how the rest of the people are staying alive. It's not the focus but it's described. Not sure how Shawn overlooked it reading the books, but maybe it's just been a long time since he's read them.
So that's what I was trying to say with that comment.
"For instance, you were using the nuanced characters (not just plain black and white) as a key example of him being realistic. But of course, the driving forces of the story and the characters that do the heavy lifting are plain black and white. Jon and Dany are always good. They make mistakes, but they are always sort of pure of spirit. They mean well. And the white walkers are always evil. Pure evil. It's plain black and white. He just stuck some fuzzy characters between the same extreme black and white that is always there in this type of story."
Oh for sure. GRRM talks about it in quite a few interviews. It's exactly all of those other characters that fill in the gaps that GRRM wanted to be more ethically nuanced than typical high fantasy he grew up reading.
Will wrote: ""No one is calling it realistic as in "wow this whole world is like real life!""I actually see quite a few people call it realistic in just that way. That is what I was disputing because when people call it "realistic", they usually don't add a caveat like you have above.
Either way, as is so often the case in disputes, it turns out we weren't talking about the same thing.
Will wrote: "It's exactly all of those other characters that fill in the gaps that GRRM wanted to be more ethically nuanced than typical high fantasy he grew up reading. "It would be cool if someone wrote a series that truly was ethically nuanced rather than just varying shades of nuance mixed with pure black and white.
But I appreciate his effort on that point for sure. It is one of my favorite things about the series.
Daniel wrote: "It would be cool if someone wrote a series that truly was ethically nuanced rather than just varying shades of nuance mixed with pure black and white."I'd be interested in hearing you flesh out what you mean here if you wanted to. I don't quite follow what the difference is.
Will wrote: "I'd be interested in hearing you flesh out what you mean here if you wanted to. I don't quite follow what the difference is. "In these worlds, there is always a kind of pure good and pure evil. But, in real life, there is nothing like that. There are instead perspectives. And it's not like real life is short on drama. World War 2 is a bigger and more epic tale than any written by a person, so you don't have to give up high drama or action or adventure or intrigue.
So what would a world look like where no character was always all the way right and no characters was always all the way wrong? We don't have an endless battle between good and evil but the true push and pull that comes from different people wanting different things and trying to assert their vision on others.
What would the world of Martin look like if you dropped all the Jon and Dany and White Walker and evil and good and just made it various houses competing with each other with all the consequences of that? They could still go to war and kill each other and betray each other and all that other fun dramatic storytelling stuff. Just no concept of good or evil needed.
The best epic fantasy type series I've ever read had people you root for in it but the people you root for change over time. Even people that were undeniably "good" at one point, sometimes turn and change as people do. No character is essential because no one is essential in life. People are always moving in and out of the story. By the end, you understand the religion of the land, the wars, the politics, the history, the romantic relationships and genetic lines, everything. And you can do it all with every major character being so nuanced that you never really know who is right or wrong. Even the characters you like aren't necessarily characters that are morally good. Even while rooting for someone, you still don't know how you feel about them morally.
There can be long drawn out plots and stories and intrigues and politics and family drama without the pure good or pure evil part at all. Why should such a thing be necessary? It seems like we only keep it around as a requirement in these types of stories out of habit. It's not really useful. Or, at least, not essential.
If there was no magic and no prophecies and no saviors and no devils, would you still read Martin? I bet you would. I'm just thinking it's odd that we have this massive cultural assumption that a struggle between pure forces (light and dark) is even remotely necessary to tell an epic story.
I actually think there could be a kind of amazing thing where people just root for the characters they like. They don't need to be "on the side of good" or anything like that. Maybe you agree with their perspective or you just like their people or culture better or whatever else. Just like how in real life, you like the people you like and want good things for them. Why add the dead weight that is the imaginary concept of "pure good" and "pure evil"?
What if you root for one family because you like their Queen (leader, ruler, whatever) but then when her son takes over, you stop liking them because the son's a douche? If there's no good or evil, just sides, then you can simply pick another house to favor or find a new character you like.
In WoT, my favorite character changed around quite a bit throughout the series, but because of the good and evil component, you end up generally on the side of either the good people or the bad people as per a person's choice (in this way, it's like playing GTA).
But what if you agree when Norway invades Sweden, but disagree when Norway betrays a treaty with Holland? Why can't the story be such that you could just be on Norway's side in that war, but on Holland's side in the next?
Take it further, why can't the story be such that you can just watch it all without being under the impression that one group is all the way good or another all the way bad? Just people aiming for their goals and trying to defeat the obstacles that rise before them. Love and sex and money and hate and family are all a fountain of delicious stories without any ethical component at all. What does the "pure evil" and "pure good" even really add?
omg....by asking about the realism... i was pointing out the fact that in reality the entire land would be dead at this point.
They didnt have huge standng armies. so every person off fighting for these random noble morons.. is one less bringing in the harvest. which means the world slowly starts to die.
beyond that... we have armies moving in extreme heat. or extreme cold... or trapped in blizzards and the reality is that a bunch of morons lugging around cold ass metal wouldnt have dicks left for the sexy sexy times. . but martin ignored all that.
so dont claim it is real. it is fantasy. it is only 'real' when convenient.
and seriously? even the worst scenes in WoT are more PG-13 than the R of NC-17 of martin.
Daniel wrote: "In these worlds, there is always a kind of pure good and..."I'm sorry. I didn't mean expand on the pure good or evil bit. I get all of that. The part I didn't get was right before that, "It would be cool if someone wrote a series that truly was ethically nuanced rather than just varying shades of nuance..." seemed like you were implying that GRRM doesn't have characters that are truly ethically nuanced. Or did you just mean you wish there wasn't the pure good and pure evil aspect on top of the ethically nuanced characters?
I'd argue that from a human perspective, there is a pure good and pure evil we could probably agree to define, and in Martin's series, he is telling human stories, even from non-human characters, he is trying to instill a human element to. Dragons are supposed to be smarter than human's in the books for instance.
So from a human perspective you could say pure evil is invoking harm to a living thing for the sake of inflicting suffering alone. Pure good would be doing good to people for the sake of helping alone and no other selfish reason.
I think the addition of pure good and evil within a world where there is lots in between as well gives you a reference point. It also allows you to sympathize a bit more with "no quite pure evil, but still evil" characters.
So if you think about it in this way, it makes sense to include it, leaving aside that it's also kind of a staple of the genre.
I don't think it's a necessary element at all though.
Shawn wrote: "i was pointing out the fact that in reality the entire land would be dead at this point. ...
They didnt have huge standng armies."
The armies in ASoIaF aren't all that large. Yet at least. And there were large armies in the Middle Ages and throughout history and the land didn't become dead.
Genghis Khan is said to have killed 40 million people in his conquests, yet the cities he captured thrived after his conquest.
And besides that GRRM paints a picture of extreme poverty throughout Westeros exactly because of all the warring.
Will wrote: ". Or did you just mean you wish there wasn't the pure good and pure evil aspect on top of the ethically nuanced characters?"I meant without the framework of Pure Good and Pure Evil. Just the story, where people do good things sometimes and bad things others.
Will wrote: "So from a human perspective you could say pure evil is invoking harm to a living thing for the sake of inflicting suffering alone. Pure good would be doing good to people for the sake of helping alone and no other selfish reason."
An good argument can be made philosophically to call that "pure good" or "pure evil" but that kind of pure good and evil is not what we see in these types of stories. What we see are pre-defined categories of "pure good" and "pure evil" defined by the whims of the author and declared to be true. It (good and evil) is absolutely a kind of mystical force, rather than a way of thinking about someone based on their actions.
Jon Snow isn't good because of his actions. From the perspective of the white walkers, he is murdering them and their people just as they begin to awaken from their hibernation. What kind of sick bastard does that? He is truly evil from their perspective. We call him good because Martin has declared it so and it is his story. I'm suggesting that we don't have to be dictated to about it. The author doesn't have to do that, and there needn't be any such mystical component that is a declared state rather than an observed state.
It's not bad that there are stories which do that. I'm just saying I personally would like it if there were also stories that didn't do that.
Will wrote: "I think the addition of pure good and evil within a world where there is lots in between as well gives you a reference point. It also allows you to sympathize a bit more with "no quite pure evil, but still evil" characters."
I agree that it can serve this function and that it is a rather useful function, but there are simpler ways to serve that. In real life, everyone is the hero of their own story. What I mean is that everyone thinks the things they do are right and justified. In the same stories, you can sympathize with people who do bad things at times because you understand why, from their perspective, what they are doing is good or, at minimum, necessary. If the author shows this to the reader, they can relate. They don't need another construct. Again, not that it's bad to have it, just unnecessary and everyone assumes it has to be there, which is how it got to be, as you say, a staple of the genre.
Will wrote: "leaving aside that it's also kind of a staple of the genre."
This is true, but only because the genre still can't see past Tolkien and he did it so everyone else does it. But the fact that everyone does it does not mean that it is good or even the preferred route. It's actually not a mark in it's favor at all.
I would argue that if you keep telling the same story over and over, it will get better for a while, and then the whole genre will fall apart because no one has any ideas that aren't still the same.
I'm simply saying that not only could there be another way of going about it, that way would be more realistic and more interesting and, quite possibly, more engaging because there can be conflict within the reader.
It might not work. Maybe the only kind of story that can be told requires those elements, but I don't think so. At the very least, I would like to see what it looks like. I'd like to see a fantasy author willing to buck that trend, but so far, I have to satisfy myself with people who call Mordor "north of the wall" as if that makes a huge difference.
Good points all around. Have you read anything from Joe Abercrombie? I can't recall his books in any way coming close to having pure good or pure evil elements anywhere in them, and he's a better writer than GRRM.
Daniel wrote: "Will wrote: "I'd be interested in hearing you flesh out what you mean here if you wanted to. I don't quite follow what the difference is. "In these worlds, there is always a kind of pure good and..."
I agree on all these points. In aGoT I rooted for Ned and Dany. after Ned made his dumbass decisions, I stopped liking him. I also stopped rooting for Dany later on. Then I rooted for Renly, until he said that Stannis is a respected and just man, but wouldn't be a good king since he isn't liked. Then he died and as I learned more about Stannis I started rooting for him. I still am rooting for the one true king, even though, on the spectrum, I would say he's on the darker side. But I don't like Dany, even though she's on the lighter side. And as for the Starks, I really like them. I was hoping they'd just support Stannis. And, if my tWoW prediction is right, they will.
And on the note of rooting for characters instead of factions, that's also agreeable, I love Tyrion and Jaime, but really dislike the Lannisters. I love Stannis and Davos, but everyone else can just die.
Seeing as you've read WoT, are there more than 2 factions that battle it out
Will wrote: "Have you read anything from Joe Abercrombie?"I have not. Any specific recommendation?
D'Mitri, do you watch the show by chance? No spoilers but the newest season may have answers for you about Stannis.
D'Mitri wrote: "Seeing as you've read WoT, are there more than 2 factions that battle it out"Many more. Lots of groups that go against each other. Even just on the political side, The Game Of Houses includes dozens of houses/factions. And, on the war front, there are lots of factions. Of course, there is still good guys and bad guys. Every other faction is a subcategory of those two.
Will wrote: "D'Mitri, do you watch the show by chance? No spoilers but the newest season may have answers for you about Stannis."Yes, but as I said before, the show pegs Stannis as a bad guy, burning his own daughter. And as for Stannis, it is confirmed he is alive in the book. I am predicting Stannis will beat The Boltons and their 20 good men thanks to Wyman Manderly. Davos will return with Rickon and the rest of the North will follow behind Stannis
His First Law Trilogy is the best place to start, because he has several standalone books within that world where there is some interweaving of characters. So if you end up being a fan and reading those, you'll get bits of inside information from having read the trilogy. I don't remember any of them being any lengthier than the first book Game of Thrones. If you'd rather start with a standalone, then The Heroes is his best book flat out. It takes place over one battle.
Will wrote: "His First Law Trilogy is the best place to start, because he has several standalone books within that world where there is some interweaving of characters. So if you end up being a fan and reading ..."Thanks, I added both to my to-read list.
Not to bring back a previous argument, but with regards to repetition between the two series, and the example of Hodor, followers of the TV show will now know that this actually has a pretty huge significance according to recent developments.
Only good thing about the show passing the books is reading spoiler recaps which make it easier to just skip the rest of the series.and yeps. from what i read it was nicely done with hodor. I still stand by the fact that he could have done it differently and not been as annoying and reached the same end. (which i will even agree with about WoT).
Come on TV show!! Render this series old news!!!! ;)
They are different mediums. I'm sure the books will outlive the series. They go into more detail. I think "it could have been done differently" is kind of a lame critique.
we both hope for different things. I am betting that the hype will die with the show because the books are vaporware.as for it being 'lame' to think he could have done it better... *points back up at Will's comments about the same stuff in WoT.* Hodor was a lame character. insanely 1 dimensional.. that was made that way just to give a character an out later in the series. I liked the theories that he failed at warging and ended up that way. It at least added a bit of depth to the character. This really didnt. From what the show depicts anyways. Maybe the book does it better justice.
But hopefully the show will spoil enough that i won't even care ;)
The things I said that I thought could be done better didn't end up having significant meaning. Like constant pulling of braids, straightening of skirts, and spanking among adults. Hodor clearly has significant meaning within the story. Don't know what you mean about an "out." The producers of the show have the general outline that GRRM has always had. Clearly from the beginning, Martin intended Hodor to be a significant character. He carries Bran to the mentor of his powers and I have no doubt Bran's powers will come into play in a significant manner within the plot.
I don't know how you could call it vaporware if you truly look at it from Martin's perspective. He's been building his world since '91, I think he deserves to delve into his world and take as long as he wants to tell his story. It may be his downfall that he keeps wanting to expand his world, but I think more people are on board with that than are turned off by it.
Actually the pulling of braids, which was only really done by Nynaeve, did have a significant meaning. It was part of her block to accessing the one power. Once she got passed that.. it stops. So it is just as significant, and she was far more of a main character as well. If anything Hodor was yet another red herring. Made to look important but in the end just isn't.Martin could have done it any of a number of ways that didn't involve making some poor guy a moronic parrot that only says 1 word... just so he could have 1 moment of redemption.
I even said it was well done. I just think it could have been done better.
You really do just like to argue. You do not need to be Martin's standard bearer if he really is as great as you claim.
As for it being vaporware.. that is all it is currently. Tons of writers have fantastic worlds and super in depth stories (Jordan for one, Sanderson for another) and neither take anywhere near as long to write as Martin. By all means he is welcome to take as long as he wants. He will just lose some like me along the way. And I bet a big portion of the people that were turned onto his books because of the show's hype and pop culture popularity.. will also dry up once the show is long gone from HBO and his books are still years from being complete. But only time will tell.
Sure I like to argue, but only when I feel like the other person's arguments are weak. I just feel empathy towards Martin after listening to a lot of his interviews and hearing about his failures initially as a writer. Once he started writing for himself, suddenly he got critical acclaim. And he has good reasons for taking the books in the direction he has. Also I have pointed out many times in this thread where I think Martin has failed as a writer, so I'm not adverse to seeing the deficiencies in the books I like, I just don't agree with you as to where those deficiencies lie.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Titus Groan (other topics)
Neuromancer (other topics)
Les Misérables (other topics)
The Brothers Karamazov (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
The Polar Express (other topics)Titus Groan (other topics)
Neuromancer (other topics)
Les Misérables (other topics)
The Brothers Karamazov (other topics)
More...
