I do / don't like George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice & Fire series

[Dr. NRG]

Re: Yeah, I love them, but...

Those who want to escape into a setting where good and evil are obvious and clearly defined should probably look elsewhere. ]

This hits it right on the head. In fact, Avarice, those people can look, well, pretty much anywhere else and find good and evil spelled out in black and white. The characters in this series are not simple; they evolve; they err; they experience life and their behavior subtely reflects what they've learned and been exposed to.

I gave up Jordan's stuff after one or two books. As someone previously commented, he appeared to have tossed aside his editor. The fact that GRRM is taking so bloody long to finish the next book is, to me, a good sign. Far too many authors labor for 10 years over their first novel, turning out an absolute gem, only to suffer when their book deal requires them to pump out a book a year for the next three years. In addition to being a fine writer, Martin is also the definition of an industry veteran, and has avoided this (among many other) common pitfalls.

Bravo George, and may you live to be 110.

NRG

P.S. That's a Greyjoy kraken under my name...

 

[Alaric_Prympax]

FWIW AFAIK Jordan's editor is his wife.

Don't you just love internet shorthand.

 

[Bob Aberton]

In my opinion, the basic problem that many people (not me...) have with GRRM's books is that his world is too realistic.

By that I mean that, in GRRM's books, just like in real life, THE HEROES DIE. Most people can't get used to a fantasy book in which the hero dies, or the hero fails miserably.

Look at Eddard Stark...

SPOILERS POSSIBLE






I WARNED YOU



I mean, seriously, look at Eddard Stark. He was brave, honest, truthful, kind, etc. In short, he was the hero. He had all the other heroic qualities.

Now, in any ordinary fantasy book, he would have succeeded in his bid to bring order to the kingdom and keep Cersei and her children away from the throne, there would have been a happy ending.

In Game of Thrones, as most of you know, he failed. Miserably. He was too trusting and goodhearted, and he was betrayed by his "friends" and stabbed in the back by those he trusted. And he was killed. And the kingdom erupted to war and bloody violence.

See what I mean by being too realistic? What do you think would happen to and honest, trusting politician in RL? Probably the same sort of thing that happened to Eddard Stark, although there wouldn't be any executions or imprisonment, just a severe loss of face and office...

And a lot of people say to themselves, "this book sucks! The hero just got killed off, and the bad guys won! I want my escapism back."

I know I have a hard time reading it, because I tend to get attached to the characters in the books. And, of course, the ones that get attached to are always the ones that get killed off.

Except for Tyrion Lannister. He's cool, and we all know he's too smart to let himself get killed off, right...?

 

[WizarDru]

SPOILERS BE HERE
I mean, seriously, look at Eddard Stark. He was brave, honest, truthful, kind, etc. In short, he was the hero. He had all the other heroic qualities.

Well, let's be honest, here. Ned Stark was likeable. He was not always a hero. His wife certainly was not happy that he fathered a bastard, then brought him home and paraded him around in front of her and her entire household, treating almost like a legitimate heir. In a world where inheritance and heraldry carry so much weight, and where a women's greatest contribution is often her progeny...that's no small thing. Stark also could be downright bloodthirsty, if it called for it.

In Game of Thrones, as most of you know, he failed. Miserably. He was too trusting and goodhearted, and he was betrayed by his "friends" and stabbed in the back by those he trusted. And he was killed. And the kingdom erupted to war and bloody violence.

Well, he was too trusting, that's true. But his death came from a psychotic 13 year-old who violated every political rule in the book. Westeros was already a powder keg when Ned Stark rolled into town.

The real issue, and I understand what you're saying, is that this isn't Ned Stark's story, but we honestly think, at the beginning, that it is, or at least might be. So when Stark dies (and you're sure...SURE! that he won't) it's a powerful shock of cold water in the face. I would posit that GRRM set it up for that very purpose, to make sure you understood the ground rules.

There are characters who are relatively nice moral actors in the series, but the Bran and the frog-catchers, for example, are not in the story constantly. Most of the main characters are good from a certain perspective, or at least they believe themselves to be. The Baratheons, for example, all think they know what's best, and each had his own set of flaws. So too the Lannisters. When characters like the Hound, Jamie Lannister and Daenrys become more heroic, some see that as a betrayl. They want good things to happen to good people, and bad things to happen to bad people...and mostly it just looks like bad things to everyone. I can certainly understand why that wouldn't appeal to some, especially if you're more of a David Eddings or Raymond Feist frame of mind, for example.

Of course, since we're only half-way through the series, we haven't even seen the good happen, per se. Much of this is just set-up for the REAL battle of good and evil.

 

[Skade]

The books are an epic in the tradition of the Odyssey. Hubris, pathos, and lots of dead people!

The heroes are not like we think of them, but like the greek heroes, which means screwed in every way. They are not only usually blind to their own faults, but filled with some really nasty ones. They almost always succeed in some meaningful way, but are then destroyed, often by their very own success.

 

[King_Stannis]

Well, let's be honest, here. Ned Stark was likeable. He was not always a hero. His wife certainly was not happy that he fathered a bastard, then brought him home and paraded him around in front of her and her entire household, treating almost like a legitimate heir. In a world where inheritance and heraldry carry so much weight, and where a women's greatest contribution is often her progeny...that's no small thing. Stark also could be downright bloodthirsty, if it called for it...

But even that may, perhaps, have been done to a greater good. Many have surmised that Jon is really Ned's sister Lyanna's child, begotten from Rhaegar Targaryan. Her "promise" to Ned may have been to never tell of his true origin, which would have lead Robert or any future king to find the boy and kill him - being he was of Targaryan blood.

If that's true, Ned did a very honorable thing in bringing dishonor to his name. It hurt Catelyn for sure but, considering the greater good it may well do, he was prepared to take that risk and call Jon his own bastard.

Naturally, this is all speculation. But evidence is pointing in that direction. Anyway, it's fun to speculate!

 

[KnowTheToe]

I mean, seriously, look at Eddard Stark. He was brave, honest, truthful, kind, etc. In short, he was the hero. He had all the other heroic qualities.

While Ned was all of those things you listed, he was also stubborn, singleminded, and stupid. He left his podunk lands and became the number two man in the kingdom he did not change how he played the game, even when he KNEW everyone else was playing hardball and playing to win. He was a dope who payed the ultimate price.

 

[Dr. NRG]

It seems to me that people often commit the sin of giving in to the literary equivalent of meta-gaming. The notion that the author won't let X character die because he's the "hero," is based on out-of-story expectations, just as the notion that your character can wade in and attack anything he faces because the DM would never let your party face anything out of their CR range is based on out-of-story expectations. For me, both lead to equally unsatisfying experiences, YRMV.

I trust my DM, and favorite authors, not to let me get away with that kind of mental shortcut. I'll admit that I was shocked when the SPOILER event above took place, but I was also pleased. That event indicated that GRRM was not just willing to follow a standard, done-a-million-times plot arc, and that I would get to experience the rare treat of reading a novel novel...

It's refreshing in the extreme to see any popular fiction, be it novels, movies, RPG adventures, or any other plot-driven entertainment, diverge from the oh-so-predictable norms. When is the last time you saw a Hollywood movie seriously diverge from providing a "happy" ending, for example? <NRG flings poo at cowardly studios>

If you prefer to know precisely who is wearing the white hats and who is wearing the black hats, there is plenty of fiction out there for you to read. If, however, you prefer a little more subtle portrayal of complicated, ambiguous characters, the Song of Fire and Ice may be for you.

NRG

 

[dpdx]

I haven't read very many fantasy novels: a couple Pratchett, two thirds of the War of Souls, and the entirety of LotR, but I've read GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire, too, and I'm all caught up there.

I liked it specifically because it was so damn grim. I root for the heroes, too, but when they ALWAYS succeed, it's just so played out. In a way, then, waiting for something good to happen to House Stark is, well... refreshing.

Conversely, when the fourth book comes out, I'll be waiting for some other people to get theirs. The Freys, The Lannisters, Stannis and his evil little necromancer friend, etc. I hope, too, that some of my favorite side characters make a reappearance: the First Sword of Braavos, the leader of that pack of brigands that hangs around the Towers, picking off the Freys, etc.

Anyway, count me among the people that liked it.

 

[King_Stannis]

Conversely, when the fourth book comes out, I'll be waiting for some other people to get theirs. The Freys, The Lannisters, Stannis and his evil little necromancer friend, etc.

Spoilers ahoy!
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

Yeah, that Stannis is a monster, the way he saved the Night Watch and all. Oh, and then there's that irritating part about him actually BEING the true king of Westeros. That's neither here nor there, but I'd be a little surly if an incestuously born monster-in-boy's-clothing as well as my little brother jumped my claim to the throne, too. And it's not like Mel has been WRONG on alot of her predictions....

Now the FREY'S, I'm with you, there. As for the Lannisters, well, the worst of them was taken care of at the end of book 3. Jaime, while I hate his guts, has started to at least TRY to redeem himself (if that's possible after pushing a 7 year old out of a window). I presume you don't wish any ill will toward Tyrion, as he is pretty cool. Really the only Lannister that needs her cummupance is Cersei. I wouldn't count on it this soon, but as we all know, anything can happen