I will agree with you that Jaime is awesome, and personally, he's my favorite character. However, I don't think he really loves his kids at all. If memory serves he didn't care at all when Joffrey died, and actually stated thought he deserved it. Throwing Bran out the window was most likely just to protect Cersei.
he did it for love of his kids, but it was Cersei's love. I would say this indifference is mostly to protect them and his feelings though given the situation. It is mentioned a few times that he couldn't spend any time with them in case somebody put 2 and 2 together. That would have hurt.
I will agree with you that Jaime is awesome, and personally, he's my favorite character. However, I don't think he really loves his kids at all. If memory serves he didn't care at all when Joffrey died, and actually stated thought he deserved it. Throwing Bran out the window was most likely just to protect Cersei.
At the start all you really know about him is that he's possibly the best fighter in Westeros, he's not averse to throwing children to their deaths, he killed the previous king (who he swore to protect with his life) and also he bangs his sister. He's also arrogant as hell. Most people hate him and Cersei while they love Tyrion.
But as the story goes on you realize that though Cersei and Tyrion both hate the fuck out of each other and and each of them legit kind of wants to kill to kill the other, Jaime actually loves his brother and they have a good relationship. You also come to realize that though banging his sister disgusts you, its actually kind of perversely sweet because they really love each other and she's the only woman he ever wanted. This kind of sets him apart from people like Robert, and Ned to some extent (only in terms of how people perceive him because they think he fathered a bastard, though jury's still out on that - most evidence points to the fact that he didn't)
You also find out that he threw Bran from the window for mostly altruistic reasons - if Robert ever found out he was the true father of Jaime and Cersei's kids, they would all be murdered. He loves his kids and he obviously doesn't want that to happen. So though it's despicable, he does actually have a pretty good reason for it.
When he killed the mad king (which everyone basically shits all over him for nonstop) he saved thousands of lives in the process. Everyone thinks he betrayed his oath, but he goes into this amazing speech about all the oaths he had to swear and why it's bullshit because what if all your different vows contradict each other? What if the king is just a straight up evil dude and needs killing?
Then later on he does even more badass heroic shit which I won't go into, that solidifies him as one of the coolest fantasy characters ever
Yeah, that's true, now that you mention it I remember thinking he was a more interesting character too, along with Tyrion.
Because I have to include a critique in every post though, I will point out that the "grey morality" seems forced at times. Like, why exactly did everyone hate him for
killing the mad king
(I guess I'll spoiler that since you did, although I think that's mentioned near the beginning of the first book and doesn't matter much to the plot since it's a setting-establishing background sort of thing)? Sure, he did the exact opposite of his job, but it seems odd he wasn't congratulated for it. Seems like everyone hates him for no reason other than it's an easy way to make him more interesting.
He's also not quite so deep as you make him out to be (in particular I think you're confused about what altruism means) but he was a cool character, definitely one of the few stand-outs.
Yep which made the tv series a little disappointing for me with the depiction of Tyrion. In the books I hated him at the start and wanted to see him "lose" a certain early event. In the show he is somebody you cheer for from the start.
Yeah it is pretty darn good. Other series might do different components better (like being actually finished for one!) but as a package I haven't read anything better.
Yeah, that's true, now that you mention it I remember thinking he was a more interesting character too, along with Tyrion.
Because I have to include a critique in every post though, I will point out that the "grey morality" seems forced at times. Like, why exactly did everyone hate him for
killing the mad king
(I guess I'll spoiler that since you did, although I think that's mentioned near the beginning of the first book and doesn't matter much to the plot since it's a setting-establishing background sort of thing)? Sure, he did the exact opposite of his job, but it seems odd he wasn't congratulated for it. Seems like everyone hates him for no reason other than it's an easy way to make him more interesting.
He's also not quite so deep as you make him out to be (in particular I think you're confused about what altruism means) but he was a cool character, definitely one of the few stand-outs.
Jaime is a member of the Kingsguard, an order which has the express duty to protect the king. Killing the king (even an unpopular one) under that context would be considered disgraceful. He was pardoned because of his father's influence and his importance towards the rebellion, but people still scorn him.
Please stop finding arbitrary things to dislike about the books.
At the start all you really know about him is that he's possibly the best fighter in Westeros, he's not averse to throwing children to their deaths, he killed the previous king (who he swore to protect with his life) and also he bangs his sister. He's also arrogant as hell. Most people hate him and Cersei while they love Tyrion.
But as the story goes on you realize that though Cersei and Tyrion both hate the fuck out of each other and and each of them legit kind of wants to kill to kill the other, Jaime actually loves his brother and they have a good relationship. You also come to realize that though banging his sister disgusts you, its actually kind of perversely sweet because they really love each other and she's the only woman he ever wanted. This kind of sets him apart from people like Robert, and Ned to some extent (only in terms of how people perceive him because they think he fathered a bastard, though jury's still out on that - most evidence points to the fact that he didn't)
You also find out that he threw Bran from the window for mostly altruistic reasons - if Robert ever found out he was the true father of Jaime and Cersei's kids, they would all be murdered. He loves his kids and he obviously doesn't want that to happen. So though it's despicable, he does actually have a pretty good reason for it.
When he killed the mad king (which everyone basically shits all over him for nonstop) he saved thousands of lives in the process. Everyone thinks he betrayed his oath, but he goes into this amazing speech about all the oaths he had to swear and why it's bullshit because what if all your different vows contradict each other? What if the king is just a straight up evil dude and needs killing?
Then later on he does even more badass heroic shit which I won't go into, that solidifies him as one of the coolest fantasy characters ever
. I hated Jamie so, so much when I started the series. Now he is very nearly my favorite character, and I am sooooo worried he is going to die. Also, I'll say Reek. Calling him that since I don't want to spoiler people that click on spoilers lawls. I never, ever thought I'd feel bad for him, but I do now. I don't know if I like him, but I definitely feel bad for him. oh, and the hound. I love the Hound so much.
Yeah, that's true, now that you mention it I remember thinking he was a more interesting character too, along with Tyrion.
Because I have to include a critique in every post though, I will point out that the "grey morality" seems forced at times. Like, why exactly did everyone hate him for
killing the mad king
(I guess I'll spoiler that since you did, although I think that's mentioned near the beginning of the first book and doesn't matter much to the plot since it's a setting-establishing background sort of thing)? Sure, he did the exact opposite of his job, but it seems odd he wasn't congratulated for it. Seems like everyone hates him for no reason other than it's an easy way to make him more interesting.
He's also not quite so deep as you make him out to be (in particular I think you're confused about what altruism means) but he was a cool character, definitely one of the few stand-outs.
I don't think anyone really knows what went down when the Mad King was killed except Jaime. Everyone hates him for it because honor is pretty important in Westeros. Kingsguard swear a lot of oaths, but the primary one is to always protect the king. Everyone just sees him as an oathbreaker. I don't think anyone really knows that he saved the entire city. The kingsguard is already pretty terrible compared to what it once was, aside from Barristan Selmy. The thing that sets him apart is that he was willing to kill the guy and shame his own honor instead of just continuing to protect him just because he swore a vow
He may not seem particularly deep but it's amazing how Martin makes you like him and actually root for him after hating him for so long
. I hated Jamie so, so much when I started the series. Now he is very nearly my favorite character, and I am sooooo worried he is going to die. Also, I'll say Reek. Calling him that since I don't want to spoiler people that click on spoilers lawls. I never, ever thought I'd feel bad for him, but I do now. I don't know if I like him, but I definitely feel bad for him. oh, and the hound. I love the Hound so much.
Yeah, I didn't think it would be possible to care what happened to "Reek" after Clash, but Martin somehow did it.
I always thought The Hound was one of the coolest characters though.
Also would add Stannis. At first I didn't really care about Stannis, thought he seemed like kind of an asshole. Then somehow he became one of my favorite characters.
Some reason that sort of makes sense, and that's believable. You know, instead of having everyone hating this guy who killed a tyrant because... why? He's an oathbreaker? I thought that Ned defining characteristic was his dedication to honor to a fault. Now I'm supposed to believe that honor is so important to every person in the world that they can't forgive someone who saved a lot of lives because he also broke a promise to protect that person? The suspension of disbelief or lack of attention required to enjoy some part of the story are another thing that make if feel really pulpy to me.
The biggest complaint I have about the series is how almost nothing has been wrapped up after A Dance With Dragons. Story threads that have been going on for over 2,000 pages have ended on cliffhangers, not resolution. Best example:
Dany in Meereen. We spend the entirety of AFFC and ADWD dreading the upcoming battle in Slaver's Bay, and it STILL hasn't happened. Instead Dany is off somewhere doing something completely different now. Same thing with Brienne. We still don't know what's up with her.
Each book is becoming less and less self-contained.
Some reason that sort of makes sense, and that's believable. You know, instead of having everyone hating this guy who killed a tyrant because... why? He's an oathbreaker? I thought that Ned defining characteristic was his dedication to honor to a fault. Now I'm supposed to believe that honor is so important to every person in the world that they can't forgive someone who saved a lot of lives because he also broke a promise to protect that person? The suspension of disbelief or lack of attention required to enjoy some part of the story are another thing that make if feel really pulpy to me.
Though most everyone agrees that Aerys was a monster, and should have been killed, Jaime broke one of the more solemn oaths in the culture, and oath breaking is established early in the series as something that could hold serious consequences (see: abandoning the Watch). Though not every character necessarily hates him for it, characters who are known to be honorable certainly look down on him for it (Brienne, Barristan, Ned), and characters who are not necessarily honorable use it as a means of insult and derision. And why not?
No suspension of disbelief is required. Just a simple understanding of the story being told.
Though most everyone agrees that Aerys was a monster, and should have been killed, Jaime broke one of the more solemn oaths in the culture, and oath breaking is established early in the series as something that could hold serious consequences (see: abandoning the Watch). Though not every character necessarily hates him for it, characters who are known to be honorable certainly look down on him for it (Brienne, Barristan, Ned), and characters who are not necessarily honorable use it as a means of insult and derision. And why not?
No suspension of disbelief is required. Just a simple understanding of the story being told.
It doesn't matter. It is like if you get caught with skid marks in your undies at school. Everybody else would have done it, but it is a nice way to dump on somebody who thinks they are the best.
Though most everyone agrees that Aerys was a monster, and should have been killed, Jaime broke one of the more solemn oaths in the culture, and oath breaking is established early in the series as something that could hold serious consequences (see: abandoning the Watch). Though not every character necessarily hates him for it, characters who are known to be honorable certainly look down on him for it (Brienne, Barristan, Ned), and characters who are not necessarily honorable use it as a means of insult and derision. And why not?
No suspension of disbelief is required. Just a simple understanding of the story being told.
It's also important to emphasize that Jaime is essentially the heir to Casterly Rock and the entire Lannister fortune. People who resent Lannister influence (see: Robert Baratheon) would use it as an easy tool to discredit Jaime and his family. Hardly a stretch to believe.
Honor is big with the Starks. What are examples of any of the other houses holding that as an important value?
Some reason that sort of makes sense, and that's believable. You know, instead of having everyone hating this guy who killed a tyrant because... why? He's an oathbreaker? I thought that Ned defining characteristic was his dedication to honor to a fault. Now I'm supposed to believe that honor is so important to every person in the world that they can't forgive someone who saved a lot of lives because he also broke a promise to protect that person? The suspension of disbelief or lack of attention required to enjoy some part of the story are another thing that make if feel really pulpy to me.
Practically nobody knows about that though. I'd think only like a handful of people know about it. Probably just Cersei, maybe Varys, probably nobody else?
Besides that, honor is something that is routinely valued (but also worthless) in the culture. Characters repeatedly comment on other characters having, or lacking honor. Seriously man, this shit isn't difficult to comprehend.
During Jaime's time in the Kingsguard, Aerys's growing insanity and attendant cruelty became more and more apparent, and Jaime found himself conflicted and troubled by many of the King's actions. One night, he and Ser Jon Darry stood guard outside Queen Rhaella's bedchamber while Aerys raped and ravaged her. Jaime commented to Darry that they were sworn to protect the Queen as well, to which Darry replied "We are, but not from him."[1] He had a similar reaction to the execution of Brandon and Lord Rickard Stark, and was reminded by Ser Gerold Hightower that he swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him.[10] Jaime coped with much of Aerys's cruelty by "going away inside", advice he would later pass on to Brienne, when Vargo Hoat's men were considering raping her, and to his son, Tommen. He genuinely believes this advice, as a way to deal with a harsh reality and making an appalling task tolerable.[11]
As Robert's Rebellion grew, Aerys refused to let Jaime join the royal army, instead keeping him in King's Landing to be used as a potential hostage against Lord Tywin, who had yet to choose a side in the conflict. Aerys appointed several Hands throughout the war, but never invited Tywin to take up his old office. Eventually Jaime was the only White Cloak in the capital.
After the Battle of the Bells it became apparent to Aerys that the rebellion might be successful and that King's Landing might be lost. Aerys devised a plan with the help of his chief pyromancers that involved placing caches of wildfire all throughout the city. The plan was to burn the entire city to the ground rather than lose it to Robert. His new Hand, Lord Qarlton Chelsted, who had been elevated to the position after the exile of both previous Hands (Lord Owen Merryweather and Jon Connington), confronted Aerys about his plan, removing his chain of office in protest and flinging it to the floor. For that, Aerys burned him alive, and raised his favorite pyromancer Rossart to the Handship. All the while, Jaime guarded the King, blankly observing the details of his plan and keeping his secrets.[3]
After Prince Rhaegar's death at the Battle of the Trident, Aerys had his pregnant queen and son Viserys Targaryen sent to Dragonstone.
After the Trident, Lord Tywin at last roused himself from Casterly Rock and called his banners. The Lannister armies marched to the gates of King's Landing, pleading for entry. Though Varys called Lord Tywin a traitor, King Aerys heeded the advice of Grand Maester Pycelle and opened his gates to Lord Tywin and his army. Once inside, Tywin betrayed Aerys and began the Sack of King's Landing. In response, Aerys commanded Jaime to bring him his father's head. Instead Jaime returned to the Iron Throne, slaying Rossart on the way, whom he believed to be carrying orders to destroy the city. Jaime then slew Aerys, plunging his sword into the Mad King's back, to prevent his message from reaching another pyromancer.
Aerys' corpse lay at the base of the Iron Throne when Lord Tywin's men, led by Ser Elys Westerling and Lord Roland Crakehall, came into the hall and discovered what Jaime had done. They asked him who would be proclaimed as King, hinting they should crown his father, or even him, but Jaime had no opinion and said they should wait. Jaime took a seat on the Iron Throne itself, realising he didn't care who claimed the throne, and was seated there when Lord Eddard Stark rode into the hall with his men to claim the throne for Robert Baratheon.[8][12]
In the following days, Jaime secretly hunted down and killed the two other pyromancers (Belis and Garigus) involved in Aerys' plan.[3] Although Eddard Stark urged Robert to strip him of the white cloak, arguing that Jaime should at the very least be made to join the Night's Watch, Robert listened to Jon Arryn instead and Jaime was pardoned by King Robert I Baratheon and, along with Ser Barristan Selmy, continued to serve in the Kingsguard.[13] Robert also gave him the name Kingslayer.
Though reviled by the realm for his betrayal, Jaime considers the slaying of Aerys to be his finest act. His true motivation for killing King Aerys remains unknown to the masses.
Besides that, honor is something that is routinely valued (but also worthless) in the culture. Characters repeatedly comment on other characters having, or lacking honor. Seriously man, this shit isn't difficult to comprehend.
I just don't remember any concrete examples of characters valuing honor besides Ned and people from his side of the world, like you said with the stigma against abandoning the wall.
OK, the fish people have honor on their flag (Ned's wife's family, right?) but what aspects of their culture prove it? Because so far as I can remember everyone was very self-serving all the time and couldn't care less about honor.
I just don't remember any concrete examples of characters valuing honor besides Ned and people from his side of the world, like you said with the stigma against abandoning the wall.
OK, the fish people have honor on their flag (Ned's wife's family, right?) but what aspects of their culture prove it? Because so far as I can remember everyone was very self-serving all the time and couldn't care less about honor.
Besides the fact that the story mentions many characters in the south that are honorable and value honor, and that Jaime Lannister is infamous for a single great act of oathbreaking and is looked down upon for it? And that another great act of oathbreaking later in the series is also shown to be looked down upon across the entirety of the realm? I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make anymore. Honor is a significant part of the culture of Westeros. Period.
OK, the fish people have honor on their flag (Ned's wife's family, right?) but what aspects of their culture prove it? Because so far as I can remember everyone was very self-serving all the time and couldn't care less about honor.
Cattelyn's uncle and brother were very much big on honor of action judging from my reading of the first book. And we didn't get to see much of the rest of her family, save her fucked up sister.
Haha! I'm just asking people to flesh out their opinions. Again, the person "bitterly complaining" has mentioned several times that he enjoyed the book. I just don't think it's great.
Some people just hype the hell out of the series. I'm still waiting for Capt. Spanky to explain the deep "genuine historical counterparts" the series is based on. I like the book, but I don't see why so many people need to make it out like it's some amazing thing instead of just enjoying it was it is, a fun fantasy book written by a guy who has been reading nothing but his whole life.
My guess is that the series biggest fans just don't read much and don't have much to compare it to other than fiction meant for kids or other fantasy series, which is understandable, but it's just odd/ confusing/ funny to me that people get so defensive and think so highly of such a bland series of books.
Cattelyn's uncle and brother were very much big on honor of action judging from my reading of the first book. And we didn't get to see much of the rest of her family, save her fucked up sister.
If fans just said "Fuck it, I don't care that the story has obvious flaws, it's fun despite them" I'd drop it. The fact that so many people are so ready to defend it against any criticism that interests me enough to keep asking. What I perceive as wholes in the story didn't keep me from enjoying it, but I'm not going to call Martin a great author or defend his vision just because I thought he wrote a story worth reading.
I mean the machinations of the entire plot revolve around who is honor-bound to swear fealty to who. And then there is an entire civilization considered honorless, lawless traitors by the rest of the world who nevertheless have their own deeply ingrained sense of honor.
dr3upmushroom said:
Haha! I'm just asking people to flesh out their opinions. Again, the person "bitterly complaining" has mentioned several times that he enjoyed the book. I just don't think it's great.
Some people just hype the hell out of the series. I'm still waiting for Capt. Spanky to explain the deep "genuine historical counterparts" the series is based on. I like the book, but I don't see why so many people need to make it out like it's some amazing thing instead of just enjoying it was it is, a fun fantasy book written by a guy who has been reading nothing but his whole life.
My guess is that the series biggest fans just don't read much and don't have much to compare it to other than fiction meant for kids or other fantasy series, which is understandable, but it's just odd/ confusing/ funny to me that people get so defensive and think so highly of such a bland series of books.
But you seem to be asking silly stubborn questions that make it sound like you weren't even paying attention to what you were reading. And this is coming from someone who is inclined to agree that the books are kind of cheap thrills, not that there's anything wrong with that. (And a fuckton better than The Name Of The Wind, I might add.) I'm sorry if it got overhyped for you but you're being obstinate from the other end of the spectrum.
My guess is that the series biggest fans just don't read much and don't have much to compare it to other than fiction meant for kids or other fantasy series, which is understandable, but it's just odd/ confusing/ funny to me that people get so defensive and think so highly of such a bland series of books.
Jaime is great looking, the best swordsmen, member of the richest family and gets the best lines.
The kingslayer stuff is just a way to dump shit on him. Almost everybody wouldn't really care but that means nothing. It doesn't have to do anything with honour to make sense.
I mean the machinations of the entire plot revolve around who is honor-bound to swear fealty to who. And then there is an entire civilization considered honorless, lawless traitors by the rest of the world who nevertheless have their own deeply ingrained sense of honor.
It's one thing to say "These people value honor." It's another to present examples of them doing so. Martin can write the word as many times as he wants but to me his characters largely seem self-interested in their actions.
Jaime is great looking, the best swordsmen, member of the richest family and gets the best lines.
The kingslayer stuff is just a way to dump shit on him. Almost everybody wouldn't really care but that means nothing. It doesn't have to do anything with honour to make sense.
So you're telling me the flag that says honor on it, the repeated use of the word honor, the culture of this world that allegedly revolves around honor even if characters' actions rarely reflect it, you're telling me that all that is just ultimately useless window dressing that has little to do the character-defining event of one of the main character's past?
AFFC/ADWD is basically moving the chess pieces around readying for the ASOS style frenzy which will be TWOW, mark my words, that book is going to be insane.
Very good point. Interestingly both books feature multiple scenes of characters playing cyvasse, the chess-like game of Westeros and the free cities. Both books seem like a clear resetting of the board after the climactic events of ASOS. Given all the pieces on the board, most poised for almost immediate war or conflict, it's clear the next book will be very explosive.
I agree with the analysis of the Boiled Leather podcast on AFFC/ADWD: they are in many ways a view of leadership and the rule of three characters:
Cersei, Dany, and Jon.
And as the decisions of Ned, Robert, another others in the first three novels shaped the storyline, the decisions of those three characters will ultimately determine some of the biggest storylines in the final act of the series.
So I definitely reject the notion that "nothing happens" in AFFC/ADWD. Tons of things happen, especially in the north in ADWD. Meanwhile AFFC has some of the best POVs in the series imo -
Cersei's descent to madness, and Jaime's redemption.
If fans just said "Fuck it, I don't care that the story has obvious flaws, it's fun despite them" I'd drop it. The fact that so many people are so ready to defend it against any criticism that interests me enough to keep asking. What I perceive as wholes in the story didn't keep me from enjoying it, but I'm not going to call Martin a great author or defend his vision just because I thought he wrote a story worth reading.
I don't think anyone claimed that the series is flawless. People are just defending it against general criticisms. Most of what you've said is easily explainable in the story and doesn't really impact the quality of the plot at all. And you've yet to identify (as far as I can tell) fiction universes which feature compelling universes in comparison to ASOIAF. Also, you don't seem to have much of a grasp on the story and you ask questions on minor details without doing any research on your own into character motivations and/or plot contrivances. It's a frustrating discussion to have. If you believe the story has thin characterization and a significantly flawed story, please provide good examples. So far they have been minor, easily countered nitpicks.
It's one thing to say "These people value honor." It's another to present examples of them doing so. Martin can write the word as many times as he wants but to me his characters largely seem self-interested in their actions.
And there's a character who's such a hard-ass about honor that it's basically his entire claim to the throne but you didn't read that far. Speaking of which, if you're going to argue "I have to read more than one book to get the shading and moral ambiguity that presents some of these characters in a new light?" the answer is, yes. Don't know what else to tell you. The first book of a seven-book fantasy series is going to be pretty straightforward. That is how these things go.
I'm baffled by the magic complaints considering Game Of Thrones is full of lore detailing a past history that included lots of magic. The underlining point of that book is the slow return of magic to the world...
Very good point. Interestingly both books feature multiple scenes of characters playing cyvasse, the chess-like game of Westeros and the free cities. Both books seem like a clear resetting of the board after the climactic events of ASOS. Given all the pieces on the board, most poised for almost immediate war or conflict, it's clear the next book will be very explosive.
I agree with the analysis of the Boiled Leather podcast on AFFC/ADWD: they are in many ways a view of leadership and the rule of three characters:
Cersei, Dany, and Jon.
And as the decisions of Ned, Robert, another others in the first three novels shaped the storyline, the decisions of those three characters will ultimately determine some of the biggest storylines in the final act of the series.
So I definitely reject the notion that "nothing happens" in AFFC/ADWD. Tons of things happen, especially in the north in ADWD. Meanwhile AFFC has some of the best POVs in the series imo -
Cersei's descent to madness, and Jaime's redemption.
Tons happens, but I doubt any of it will be in any way relevant.
We all know:
in the next book the others have to come down and start fucking everything up. Otherwise the whole series is pointless because there is no threat to it all. Hence all the Dorne and Iron Islands stuff is just setup to go nowhere as it is swept away for a final confrontation with Jon and Danerys teaming up
That is my issue with what does and doesn't happen. I'm happy for those stories to be told, but make them spinoff books after the main tale is done.
I don't think anyone claimed that the series is flawless. People are just defending it against general criticisms. Most of what you've said is easily explainable in the story and doesn't really impact the quality of the plot at all. And you've yet to identify (as far as I can tell) fiction universes which feature compelling universes in comparison to ASOIAF. Also, you don't seem to have much of a grasp on the story and you ask questions on minor details without doing any research on your own into character motivations and/or plot contrivances. It's a frustrating discussion to have. If you believe the story has thin characterization and a significantly flawed story, please provide good examples. So far they have been minor, easily countered nitpicks.
I'd say most of the flaws are in the cheesy, arbitrary inclusion of magic, and as far as thin characterization goes, none of the characters seem to have complex motivations for their actions to me. If you want to provide an example your curious about I'll elaborate but not a one character seems to have much going on to me.
I'm not sure how my questions are about minor details and don't agree that they've been easily countered. I ask how characters actively display their devotion to loyalty and I'm answered with a flag you're only going to see if you read the appendix. I ask some to elaborate on their assertion that the novel is based on historical counterparts after I call it shallow and I'm not answered at all.
In fact, I think the two most common answers to any questions I've asked are "It's easy, you just don't get it" with no further explanation, or "You just have to read another fifteen hundred pages," which is one of my problems in the first place.
And there's a character who's such a hard-ass about honor that it's basically his entire claim to the throne but you didn't read that far. Speaking of which, if you're going to argue "I have to read more than one book to get the shading and moral ambiguity that presents some of these characters in a new light?" the answer is, yes. Don't know what else to tell you. The first book of a seven-book fantasy series is going to be pretty straightforward. That is how these things go.
I felt the same way, I picked up the first four books on sale in a packaged deal and thought the first book was pretty entertaining, but like most fantasy books it meanders a lot, is predictable, has a lot of stereotypical characters, and didn't leave me confident that spending tens of hours on the rest of the series would be a good use of my limited reading time.
For every entertaining character like Tyrion there's an absurd situtation like
the pointless attempts at being "mature" and "political," two adjectives I see used to describe the series that it didn't earn at all in the first book, like the pace-ruining scene where the eldest Stark son has to marry into one of the other powerful families in order to gain passage to the enemy in the middle of a war
near the end of the book.
The characters all seem extremely simple too. I think how a series handles its villains is a good indication of how thoughtful the author is in characterizing his cast, and Joffrey and his mom are the most boring kind of "evil for the sake of being evil" bad guys who exist only for you to hate them.
Like I said, I didn't totally hate the book, it was a fun read and if I wasn't afraid I wouldn't be able to follow the sequels after so much time between them I could see picking up the rest of the series to read on vacations or something like that, but 800 pages of the story was enough for me for awhile, and nothing about the characters, setting, or plot made me want to spend thousands more with them.
You feel the same about critiques of Justin Bieber's music, McDonald's food, etc?
First off Cersei isn't evil; it's hard to take your critique seriously based on misfires like that. I'm curious which characters you feel are "simple" outside of the children. The series is full of nuanced characters, Tyrion isn't the only one. Perhaps you could argue Jon is simple I guess. It's even harder to discuss the nuances of characters based on one novel, also.
The series is loosely based on the War Of The Roses and other medieval settings - which were indeed full of politics and horse trading. Furthermore the specific scene you mention takes up what, one chapter maybe two? That hardly justifies being labeled as a momentum killer.
Tons happens, but I doubt any of it will be in any way relevant.
We all know:
in the next book the others have to come down and start fucking everything up. Otherwise the whole series is pointless because there is no threat to it all. Hence all the Dorne and Iron Islands stuff is just setup to go nowhere as it is swept away for a final confrontation with Jon and Danerys teaming up
That is my issue with what does and doesn't happen. I'm happy for those stories to be told, but make them spinoff books after the main tale is done.
But the Dorne stuff is intimately tied to Dany and perhaps a pretender looking to usurp her throne. And the Iron Isles contribute to the level of chaos that is tearing the north and south apart while a universal threat emerges (the Others).
I agree the series will probably end up about Jon and Dany but the chaos of Westeros may well lead to that in the first place. Everyone is fighting over the throne (well, except for Stannis, who actually gives a shit/knows about the Others), a new king or queen may be crowned soon. I'm starting to think this final act will largely be about Dany choosing the realm over the Iron Throne, thus perhaps dooming the campaign of "Aegon" who will need her help - or leading to him taking the throne and declaring her a threat.
The Others will attack when the realm is at its weakest point and can barely defend itself, and Dany will ride in to the rescue (probably just temporary, I don't believe there will be an "eagles are coming!" moment here).
I had first reread of the books last February and actually enjoyed the books even more than the first time. All the chapters I didn't enjoy the first time were some how much more enjoyable. Also, reading all the books back to back I noticed that the first book has clumsiest writing in the series. Senteneces like this "Her prince—no, her king now!" (just an awful phrase) were gone from the following books.
Read the whole series, all the books are actually great books.
I love the series. A Storm of Swords may be my favorite piece of fiction ever. Of course I'm a bit biased, but I can't think of another fantasy writer who's as good at worldbuilding than GRRM. At least none working today. And yeah, there are flaws in the writing and it's a bit overlong...
But if you're going to have such a hard-set opinion on the series you should probably read it all first. Otherwise you're arguing based on second-hand information (and sometimes no information at all) and speculation. To say that Martin doesn't give enough attention to detail is an astounding accusation to make. His ability to interweave that many characters/plots/whatever over the course of seven huge novels is impressive.
I had first reread of the books last February and actually enjoyed the books even more than the first time. All the chapters I didn't enjoy the first time were some how much more enjoyable. Also, reading all the books back to back I noticed that the first book has clumsiest writing in the series. Senteneces like this "Her prince—no, her king now!" (just an awful phrase) were gone from the following books.
Read the whole series, all the books are actually great books.
It's a weird thing when a writer devotes most of their career to a single series. Usually if they improve as a writer newcomers can skip their work where they were finding their legs, but in a case like this it's unfortunate that to get to the books written by a more experienced Martin you're required to read his entire bibliography.
I love the series. A Storm of Swords may be my favorite piece of fiction ever. Of course I'm a bit biased, but I can't think of another fantasy writer who's as good at worldbuilding than GRRM. At least none working today. And yeah, there are flaws in the writing and it's a bit overlong...
But if you're going to have such a hard-set opinion on the series you should probably read it all first. Otherwise you're arguing based on second-hand information (and sometimes no information at all) and speculation. To say that Martin doesn't give enough attention to detail is an astounding accusation to make. His ability to interweave that many characters/plots/whatever over the course of seven huge novels is impressive.
I'm curious to, and I definitely think that GoT seems way, way more interesting than a lot of other popular series and authors, it's just that the thing is so long that you really have to consider how much time you want to devote to a single story.
Maybe if I have a bunch of free time over the summer I'll read the second book and see if I want to go further.
I asked about any actions outside Ned/ the Starks that actually demonstrate a devotion to honor beyond simply stating it. Someone posted the flag and I asked them to elaborate.
I get that in the North honor is respected because of stuff like the social contract that the people defending the wall enter into, but I don't see or recall much else in the way of actual behavior reinforcing the idea that honor is valued throughout the continent, despite the repeated assertion that they do.
Honestly man, you are elongating an argument in which you already could have read half of A Clash of Kings in the time you've spent in this thread. You keep citing this "time" investment needed to get into the meat of the story as an excuse not to read it, and yet here you sit, content to argue on. Not to sound antagonistic, but a lot of your views go directly against what many people including professional critics praise the series for. Your continual argument has a large gap of knowledge and context, which is honestly impossible to fill in completely without reading the actual damn books.
You can read great works of fiction, whatever you consider those to be. They can be concise, well-written, well-characterized, and well-plotted. What they will lack in comparison to series is the complete scope. You seem to not find the world or characters interesting, which is fine, but many people are drawn in and intrigued. They don't see magic as contrived, rather something mysterious, something that has lain dormant within the world for ages and is bubbling back to the surface. They are invested into characters like Tyrion, Jaime, Reek, Arya, Littlefinger, and many others. These characters have great arcs that really do break many cliches. The plotting becomes incredibly intricate and is not as simple as it may seem on the surface. You may consider it convoluted at times, but allusion, foreshadow, and backstory are there to back up every advancement in plot. I really need to go to bed and I'm not sure how to end this, so night.
I would be incredibly interested in reading your opinion on the whole series as you do see the series with a more critical eye than most. If you read it all, I would have no problems with you criticizing it, but from your limited point of view, it is hard not to call to question a lot of your thoughts. The series is severely flawed with pacing issues galore, but most of it adds to the overall world, for better or for worse.
It's a weird thing when a writer devotes most of their career to a single series. Usually if they improve as a writer newcomers can skip their work where they were finding their legs, but in a case like this it's unfortunate that to get to the books written by a more experienced Martin you're required to read his entire bibliography.
The only other work of Martin's I've read is a short story collection called Sandkings (named after a story inside it) but its easily one of my favorite short story collections ever.
The only other work of Martin's I've read is a short story collection called Sandkings (named after a story inside it) but its easily one of my favorite short story collections ever.
The only other work of Martin's I've read is a short story collection called Sandkings (named after a story inside it) but its easily one of my favorite short story collections ever.
I tracked down and read most of his other stuff in the twilight years between ASOS and AFFC. They're decent reads - but Sandkings (for short stories) and Fevre Dream (for novels) are the ones I still remember with some detail. And maybe that first Wild Cards story of his about the Turtle, which I found hilarious for no reason.
I tracked down and read most of his other stuff in the twilight years between ASOS and AFFC. They're decent reads - but Sandkings (for short stories) and Fevre Dream (for novels) are the ones I still remember with some detail. And maybe that first Wild Cards story of his about the Turtle, which I found hilarious for no reason.
Also, The Way of Cross and Dragon pops up all the time though as a reprint or in anthologies. It's a decent story.
There's a story, Bitterblooms, in Sandkings, that takes place on a world that seems like a thematic predecessor to ASOIF, specifically the idea that summer and winter also last for years. It was also explicitly another planet that humans had colonized with interstellar travel and then reverted to a much more primitive state of society and technology, and it sometimes made me wonder if ASOIF actually does take place in the far future on another planet. Probably not though, it was almost certainly just the first story where he had the "years long winter" idea.
oh, and the hound. I love the Hound so much.
