Things we didn't have to know...

[Mechaniik]

Yes, I think the scene with Cersei and Lad Merryweather was actually one of the most telling scenes in AFFC, especially in the comparison of Cersei to Robert, and how she is becoming to be manipulated by her courtiers just as much as Robert ever was (although there was one phrase, IIRC, that was a bit over the top).

 

[Tansy]

funny how a lot of the graphic politics details are included and not complained about and the violence - I guess writing a book like this you need to cover each aspect of life inteh right proportion

... I just think all can be important if detailed and treated right and if the balance is right, but obviously that is hard to judge for everyone and sex is a tricky subject. I think the telling thing with Cersei is that she thought she was much more clever and more in control of her thralls than she actually was, she thought the fact she was a women protected her in a way from people realising her manupulations (as they thought only men could do that so would not consider her a player to the level she thought she was), when in fact the smarter ones just thought she was mad and saw right through her, in the end thinking she could control people by sex backfired when the church got hold of her knight Kettleback and tortured the truth out of him. I did love the scene when she realised she was caught out and in the crap, a fantastic sense of justice came over me but I did kind of feel sorry for what is to come with her letting a religious army loose on the land expecting it to have some loyalty to her as its creator and then thinking oh crap it's gonna be my downfall, and I think these church knights are going to have a big impact

 

[YOSSARIAN]

I think the graphic language and descriptions in the books are a boon to Martin's talent as a writer. Martin is perceptive enough to know that some of the scenes in the book had a high potential to offend and disturb. He could've softened it up, but then the reader would not get a clear picture of the depravity of Clegane or the Mummers. We would lose the psychological insight into Cersei's nature (the scene with Taena was not sexy as much as it was a revelation of how warped Cersei had become and possibly how Robert had made her even worse than she was before their marriage.) History's most disturbing literature has always been the most effective:the torture of Winston Smith in 1984; the descent into violence, gore, and rape and the end of Catch 22; Raskolnikov bludgeoning the old lady in Crime and Punishment; the various crucifixion (sp?) scenes in the Gospels, etc. Tolkien tries to convince us Sauron is the penultimate EVIL, but never SHOWS us why-just saying he is EVIL don't mean squat. I ain't scared of no fiery eye who needs some silly magic ring to enslave the world. Satan is supposed to be frightening and EVIL, but all he does in the Bible is trick a gal into eating an apple, tempt Jesus to eat during an absurdly long fast, try to get a boil covered farmer to renounce Jehovah (who is the one actually torturing the guy), and cause some dudes in a couple cities to engage in copious buttsex. Sodomy and diseased flesh are generally unappealing, but not EVIL. As a contrast, the scores of graphic smiting incidents in the Bible are very effective in scaring the crap out Sunday School students (so effective that the fear of God's wrath remains in the minds of the faithful throughout life.) Hell, Hell ain't even scary in the Bible-it needed the vivid imagination of history's clergy to paint the picture and sear it into Christian brains. They've been very effective at that task. No indictment of religion here-just trying to drive home the point that explicit imagery is the only effective tool a storyteller has. Martin should be commended for having the artistic courage to show us the horror in his world. Anything less would be artistically irresponsible. By the way, Martin's ability to show us everything in vivid detail (not just the horrible stuff) is what makes him one the best writers of any genre.