GRRM ruined a song of ice and fire by killing too many good characters

[Darth Angelus]

I don't think it was the nastiness of the Nazis' behaviour and ideology that brought the Soviet Union into the war. (That nastiness didn't prevent the signing of, for instance, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as it didn't prevent bits of paper (for example) being signed by others who later fought Germany.)

It was, rather, Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union that did the trick. (Given the importance of the Red Army in defeating Germany, it was, perhaps, the Nazis' overconfidence that led to their ultimate downfall).

Well, it wasn't exactly nastiness on the Nazis part that brought them down, true. Like I said, it was about convincing both other blocs you were the most immediate threat.

I believe that basically, the Nazis went bankrupt on diplomatic credibility as far as the Western Allies were concerned when they invaded Poland (Hitler had agreed in Munich he would not grab more land), convincing the West (those who saw things clearly, anyway) that the Nazis was a major threat to their safety.
Invading Soviet of course convinced Stalin he was a threat to Soviet, too.
In both cases, there was a violation of an earlier treaty, proving that Hitler could not be trusted to keep treaties, meaning that neither the West nor Soviet were likely to trust a signature from the Nazis again.

I am fairly sure that there are situations where being nasty in less calculated ways will convince others you pose a severe threat to their safety. The Nazis were bankrupt on diplomatic credibility by mid-1941.

Ultimately, it depends on how smart you are when you are nasty, and not alienate someone who can later fight back.

As far as ASoIaF is concerned, it can be argued that in the second novel, CoK, Stannis alienated the Tyrells by having Renly assassinated (it was the only way he could get hold of a part of Renly's army, but still), which meant the Tyrells turned on him. Had the Lannisters been too nasty to the Tyrells by then, the Tyrells might have smashed Tywin's armies at Blackwater instead of helping them. That wouldn't have been good for the Lannister cause at all...

It is about not alienating the wrong people, not about being ethical.

 

[Eulalia]

I suppose people can understand nastiness for greed, power or territory.

It does seem like there are lots of examples of causing problems with allies from chaotically nasty behaviour like Joffrey's, Ramsay's, or Aerys'. In WW II, Hitler started to have problems with his own generals. Edward IV (one of the inspirations for King Robert Baratheon) reluctantly decided to execute his own brother for lethal paranoia and side switching. Richard the III probably went a bridge too far with his nephews and their supporters. Even Tywin was killed, in the end, for unforced nastiness to Tyrion (sleeping with Shae and brutishness with Tysha?)

 

[Tywin]

I don't think it was the nastiness of the Nazis' behaviour and ideology that brought the Soviet Union into the war. (That nastiness didn't prevent the signing of, for instance, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as it didn't prevent bits of paper (for example) being signed by others who later fought Germany.)

It was, rather, Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union that did the trick. (Given the importance of the Red Army in defeating Germany, it was, perhaps, the Nazis' overconfidence that led to their ultimate downfall).

The United States was never attacked by Nazi Germany, yet we bankrolled the rest of Europe against them and then shipped millions of Soldiers across the Atlantic to bring them to their knees. All while putting Japan (who had made the extraordinarily poor decision of attacking the United States) on the backburner until the Nazis were taken care of.

That is what happens when you convince people that you are a threat to their survival.

 

[Ursa major]

I have no idea why the US focused on the war in Europe rather more than on the war in the Pacific, so you may be right that they** were driven mostly by a desire to remove the evil of Nazism.

I was merely pointing out that it was unlikely to be the case on the eastern front in Europe (particularly as those in power in the Soviet Union weren't exactly that pleasant themselves, to say the least), and that they (eventually) played perhaps the biggest role in defeating the Nazis, given they were fighting them on a massive scale from the start of Operation Barbarossa to the fall of Berlin. The UK was at war with Germany for longer, from September 1939 to the end of the war, but could not deploy the sort of forces in the field that the Soviet Union could, even on those occasions when the UK was involved in army-to-army battles.



** - I'm not sure who "they" were. I understand (but not in a deep way), that FDR was keen to help the UK fight against the Nazis, but I don't know whether he was pushing at an open door when trying to convince other parts*** of your complex governmental system. And I don't know why he wanted to focus on the Nazis.

*** - I'm assuming here, perhaps wrongly, that FDR didn't have a free hand in deciding the priorities of the war effort.

 

[Darth Angelus]

I was merely pointing out that it was unlikely to be the case on the eastern front in Europe (particularly as those in power in the Soviet Union weren't exactly that pleasant themselves, to say the least), and that they (eventually) played perhaps the biggest role in defeating the Nazis, given they were fighting them on a massive scale from the start of Operation Barbarossa to the fall of Berlin. The UK was at war with Germany for longer, from September 1939 to the end of the war, but could not deploy the sort of forces in the field that the Soviet Union could, even on those occasions when the UK was involved in army-to-army battles.

I will agree with that part. The Soviet was not likely in it to protect the safety of other nations. When reading my posts in hindsight, I did realize they might be misunderstood as me glorifying the Soviet leadership, which was not my intention at all, since their leadership was very unpleasant themselves, as you say.

Even so, thinking what one may about them, I do very much think they, too, eventually came to see the Nazis as the greatest threat to their safety, even if it might have taken the invasion to do it. After all, it was a foreign invader who murdered millions of Soviet civilians in their wake. At that point, I figure it would have been immensely difficult even for someone like Stalin to see anyone other than the Nazis as the greatest threat to Soviet's safety, as it was so blatantly obvious who was their worst enemy.
So, the Soviets did eventually do what they did to look after their own safety, too. Whether they didn't help the Allies from the start was because they didn't realize who the worst threat was at the time, or (somewhat more likely, imo) they did realize who their worst enemy but were happy to let the Allies bear the brunt of the Nazi attack for as long as possible while they armed and prepared for war, I do not know.

In any case, the Soviet leadership did look after Soviet safety, in its own way.

 

[JoanDrake]

The United States was never attacked by Nazi Germany, yet we bankrolled the rest of Europe against them and then shipped millions of Soldiers across the Atlantic to bring them to their knees. All while putting Japan (who had made the extraordinarily poor decision of attacking the United States) on the backburner until the Nazis were taken care of.

That is what happens when you convince people that you are a threat to their survival.

Keep in mind that the Nazis declared war on the USA. On Dec 10, a day AFTER we declared war on the Japanese. Hitler was under no obligation to do so as the Axis pact only would have applied if the US had started the war.


It's thought that the undeclared war we were having with Germany in the Atlantic may have convinced Hitler that he would be drawn in eventually and it's not an unwarranted assumption, but it is hard to see how Roosevelt would have gotten Congress to support a war with Germany if they hadn't went to war with us first.

 

[JoanDrake]

In history, the people who were killed, and/or tortured, were made of flesh and blood and suffered every moment of their torments. I've never been able to immerse myself in fiction so far as to forget this essential difference (which doesn't mean I'm not affected by the deaths of fictional characters in books; I am).

This reminds me of the end of one of the Flashman books where his lover, an Indian Rani, is run through (Forgive my memory, don't have the book anymore.) "I wish I could say that I held her in my arms and kissed her gently as she died. Instead I watched her bend double with the pain and scream her life out for ten minutes. It was all I could do, that, and hope nobody would hear her and come to kill me too. I should have choked the life from her. It would have been a mercy and the smartest thing to do but it's deuced difficult to kill the only woman you'll ever love."

My two cents on the Robb thingy.

I think it was more because **** happens. (Pardon my French.) Rob was a great guy and he won every battle, but Rob was a terrible judge of character and was rather obstinate at times. I've been rereading Game of Thrones lately and it is really obvious when you look at it after you read it all. Combined with honour, it is normal that it had done him in. He was too trusting at times and he had put much stock in the honour of the wrong people.

I think Martin was trying to show that regardless of how repugnant we consider the methods Tywin, Freys, and Roose had taken there, it is really that such people are often the ones to succeed. Red Wedding is not really vile for what we saw, but rather most for the fact that the sacred laws of hospitality were violated. Martin is trying to show us that there are always people out there willing to go and do things most of us would never do just to get ahead. They are going to use whatever opening you leave them and Robb had left one.

Also the story is not over yet. This may come back to haunt the Lannisters, especially when they need the South to stand united against Danery's Dragons and/or the White Walkers

Roose Bolton hits on this subject in one of his conversations with Ramsay, and I think it's important to bring up again.

Paraphrasing Roose here: "They have to respect you enough to be afraid to wrong you, but not so afraid that they feel like they need to get rid of you for their own safety."

We used the War of the Roses as an example before, but I'd like to jump up to more modern times and point to the example of Nazi Germany, which was ruthless, cruel, and incredibly threatening. It did not end well for them.

Great point, Tywin!

That was exactly where I was coming from.

WWII is an outstanding example of this, because the Nazis managed to make two major political blocs in the world, the Western Allies and the Soviets, who were pretty far from friends and did not trust one another at all* work together against them (if only until the Nazis were brought down), by making them both think the Nazis were the worst or at least most immediate threat to their safety. Making the capitalist west and communist east work toward a common goal (even for a time) really required an extraordinary menace.

It is not a great recipe for success to convince everyone else that you are the worst threat to their safety, moreso even than their old enemies.


* Everything I have ever read on the subject indicates little trust between the west and Soviet, before WWII, and after (the Cold War). They were just united in their fear of what a Nazi victory would mean for them.

I'm going to get myself in trouble here, so please remember I'm speaking for what lots of historians say, not just me.


The Western Powers had plenty of chances to easily eliminate Hitler early on. When he first broke the Versailles Treaty, when he took the Ruhr back from France, when he took Austria, as late as when he took the Sudetenland, France and England could have kicked him to the curb fairly easily. The reason they didn't was that he had made it overwhelmingly clear his main objective was against Russia, and France/England feared Russia more than Germany. Whether they felt like the German business cartels that "We can handle this Hitler fellow" or they just underestimated him is irrelevant. They allowed him to gain power because they thought he would destroy Russia for them


Hitler did a rope a dope on them. He hit them first in an attempt to knock them out of the war quickly. When they didn't fold like accordions he figured he had to hit Russia fast, as they certainly would. This was his fatal mistake.


That, and declaring war on America. I've been told he had good reasons for that too, but I'll be damned if I've ever understood them. In any case, I'm glad he did. The sooner the world was rid of him, the better.

I have no idea why the US focused on the war in Europe rather more than on the war in the Pacific, so you may be right that they** were driven mostly by a desire to remove the evil of Nazism.

I was merely pointing out that it was unlikely to be the case on the eastern front in Europe (particularly as those in power in the Soviet Union weren't exactly that pleasant themselves, to say the least), and that they (eventually) played perhaps the biggest role in defeating the Nazis, given they were fighting them on a massive scale from the start of Operation Barbarossa to the fall of Berlin. The UK was at war with Germany for longer, from September 1939 to the end of the war, but could not deploy the sort of forces in the field that the Soviet Union could, even on those occasions when the UK was involved in army-to-army battles.



** - I'm not sure who "they" were. I understand (but not in a deep way), that FDR was keen to help the UK fight against the Nazis, but I don't know whether he was pushing at an open door when trying to convince other parts*** of your complex governmental system. And I don't know why he wanted to focus on the Nazis.

*** - I'm assuming here, perhaps wrongly, that FDR didn't have a free hand in deciding the priorities of the war effort.

The US President is the Commander in Chief of all the military, so once Congress declares war, yes, he has a pretty free hand. The reason they went after Germany first was a matter of some dispute but Roosevelt argued they were much the stronger and we were fighting them too so he got his way

 

[Brian G Turner]

May we please get this thread back to GRRM rather than WWII, thanks?

 

[Darth Angelus]

May we please get this thread back to GRRM rather than WWII, thanks?

Sure, Brian!

Sorry for my part in the WWII sidetracking! Won't be bringing it up again.


But anyway, I am still of the opinion (like Tywin) that causing others to feel their safety is severely threatened by you, is quite often a bad strategy. At least if it is a political game in the balance, where others may be able to topple you.

 

[Boaz]

Today, it occurred to me that besides killing interesting characters in order to prove that ASOIAF is a gritty tale, GRRM might also have written the deaths of so many in order that he can actually bring back a character in a plausible manner. And I don't mean it as in Beric's and Stoneheart's cases.

People want to know if Rhaegar, Baby Aegon, and Ashara all really died eighteen years ago.

 

[Reivax26]

Oddly enough, I think all 3 are alive. I believe that Azshara Dayne is the lady that travels with Aegon and that it really is Aegon. I also have a sneaky suspicion that Rhaegar is the bald monk that Brienne encountered when she began looking for the Stark daughters.

 

[devilsgrin]

Today, it occurred to me that besides killing interesting characters in order to prove that ASOIAF is a gritty tale, GRRM might also have written the deaths of so many in order that he can actually bring back a character in a plausible manner. And I don't mean it as in Beric's and Stoneheart's cases.

People want to know if Rhaegar, Baby Aegon, and Ashara all really died eighteen years ago.

i'm pretty confident that Aegon is Connington's Aegon. And Septa Lemore is Ashara Dayne (defenestration could have had anyone fall and be an unrecognisable mess). Rhaegar i think is too much of a stretch. Robert seemed pretty damned confident he'd slain the Prince. And its more dramatic, even poetic if the somewhat bookish, but warrior by default Prince is slain in a ford by his brutish foe...

 

[Ursa major]

I find it very hard to believe that Rhaegar could have survived. Robert's hatred of Targs -- look at his deadly pursuit of Dany, someone whose only crime was to be a Targ -- stemmed directly from his hatred of Rhaegar. Robert would have wanted to sure that he'd killed his enemy.


There are only two other possibilities:

• Rhaegar had sent an imposter to fight Robert ; this goes against everything we know about Rhaegar and his honour.
• There was a Red Priest handy; putting aside whether their resurrection powers were working back then, surely a resurrected Rhaegar would have adopted that religion, not remained with the Seven.

 

[viZion]

Rhaegar is dead. I think there were more than enough witnesses around to confirm that death. Besides, if we start resurrecting too many characters we might as well just read the Malazan series . Let's keep the dead dead, please.

 

[Tywin]

Except Ned, right?

He can come back.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Didn't Joffrey have a red priest near him?

 

[juleska]

Except Ned, right?

He can come back.

Much as I like Ned (and Robb), I think both their deaths were necessary...and that we can be certain of them. Jon's on the other hand....

 

[Idealect]

What I don't get, if the world is so grim and realistic, is how Robb Stark, with the fate of Westeros on his shoulders, thinks true love is more important than alliances. He didn't grow up watching disney or Rom-Coms. Where did he learn to be such a jackass?

I don't remember the exact details but his father is either already dead or in the hands of his enemies. He's surrounded by men who are dying for him and for some level of decency from their rulers, by people who's friends and family have already died for him.

It's like he has no understanding at all of the seriousness of the situation.



I think the red wedding illustrates something positive: when they went in there they were taking a huge risk, but they did it anyway because it was the only path to victory, and the ends justified the risks. It can be tempting to not play to win, in life, in games: to make the neat move, the "sensible" move, the "safe" move, the wise looking move that no one can criticise you for, instead of taking a stronger risk. They made a really strong call, I'd call it a beautiful decision, by putting their lives in Walder Frey's hands for the sake of the kingdom.




It seems like the good characters just turn into complete jackasses sometimes, throwing away their chances for no particular reason:


For instance I don't remember exactly how Ned dies but I'm pretty sure it's some kind of jackassery that has nothing to do with honour. I think he goes to Cersei and basically announces that he's her enemy, her days are numbered etc. That's not honourable, that's being an NPC caricature. Especially when his shtick is as much about not flinching from the unpleasant side of things as it is about justice. And there's some kind of drama where he has the oppurtunity to seize power, and keep things under control till a new king can be chosen fairly, but instead he leaves it to the lannisters to take control and put themselves on the throne.






Oberyn vs the mountain is such a cruel bait and switch. I mean come on, he's basically Inigo Montoya, we've all seen that scene. He's winning, the mountain is down, he's cocky yeah but he should have some idea of the strength of his poisons and how they would be affected by the mountain's size, so you trust that cockiness. And if he was merely cocky you'd think he could dodge what must have been a telegraphed desperation move, but he's caught completely off guard, so he's not just cocky, he's careless. He literally goes and stands on the guy's chest.

There's no indication the mountain has any strength left but through the power of evil the mountain has the strength and presence of mind to, while severely poisoned, injured and on his back, catch out and pull down Oberyn who doesn't go for a dagger or the mountain's eyes or anything) then kill him with two or three punches to the face while shouting a twisted repetition of the confession to the crowd.

“Then I smashed her ******* head in. Like this."

"Like this." Really? Now the mountain is a hollywood badass or a cartoon protagonist?





And then they resurrect the dude.



Unless he was feigning weakness (I don't think ASOIAF would leave you to figure that out by yourself, and it doesn't really fit with the mountain's character or how the fight went anyway) It's really misleading, and it doesn't even make sense in universe.

That's my problem with a lot of the tragedy in Game of thrones. If I'm reading Dresden files I don't pay too much attention to the mechanics of what's going on, because it's not supposed to be realistic, it's supposed to be cool.
If you want to play fast and loose to make me feel good great (though actually dresden files is really good about mechanical justification).


Having reality warp to do the opposite, or worse, first tricking you into hoping, just to deliver the message EVIL ALWAYS WINS AHAHAHAHAHA, not so OK in my book (pun not intended).

If I'm going to accept something horribly demoralising it needs to be because the bad guys planned better, got lucky, were stronger, had a stronger position, or something, not just because evil is strong, good is weak and life is pain, or whatever.





Why does Theon just turn evil? Because Cat didn't love him?


Why does Stannis use the Demon baby on Renly, removing the threat to the Lannisters, instead of using it as a threat to bring Renly to his side, or simply step aside, then do it after the coronation, inhereting the throne?


And Robert being successfully assassinated by drunkenness.

Jamie's hand being chopped off.

etc



I still like the books because they're so well written, and I never thought to complain about them before, but now that I think about it, it's like there's a malignant force watching over everything nudging things to turn out badly and unless it turns out there actually is I find it really cheap.








On a different note I think the red wedding was an atrocity mainly because of the unprecedented and almost inconceivable violation of guest right. Guest right was SACRED in Westeros. Sure, some few people probably broke it, but in secret and most likely with great shame and fear of divine retribution The concept remained unblemished in people's minds.

It was a universal tradition, a religious institution, a bit of pride in humanity every person could have, a way for people to trust each other, let their guards down for once in their crapsack world. It was a ritual, a tradition, a bit of peace. It was the one thing every major religion agreed on. It was a great piece of their culture and their world, the exact opposite of a tragedy of the commons, enshrined by religion and tradition and coordinated by nothing but human decency to to survive on an amazing scale, with an amazing strength.


In Westeros people will talk of the red wedding for centuries, and unless Walder Frey is tortured to death for years (which would be storybook nonsense, he's scott free, and has little enough to live for that could be taken from him), about how he got away with by far the most brutal violation of guest right known to man, People will notice how violation of guest right won the Lannisters the war. It would mean living in a world where your rulers are in charge because they took the one thing that was sacred and brazenly destroying it. It would be like having O'Brien's Boot stamping on a human face emblazoned in every public place. Of course things might not work out that way at all but that was Tywin's and Walder's intention. It's like using biological weapons, or hollow point bullets but worse because it was a universal tradition, not just a war time one. And when technology gets developed there will already be the precedent set that people will stoop to any level.

 

[Boaz]

What I don't get, if the world is so grim and realistic, is how Robb Stark, with the fate of Westeros on his shoulders, thinks true love is more important than alliances. He didn't grow up watching disney or Rom-Coms. Where did he learn to be such a jackass?

I don't remember the exact details but his father is either already dead...

It's like he has no understanding at all of the seriousness of the situation.

Idealect, Welcome! Let me fill in a few of the details and give you my perception of Robb's motivations.

Despite the Stark words, "Winter Is Coming," Eddard did not fully prepare his children. Yes, he gave Robb (and Jon) the best education in leadership, finance, land management, and military that the North could afford. The book opens with Eddard starting to educate Bran in the same manner.... executing deserters. The flaw in the education lies with the existence of Jon Snow. Eddard never explained Jon's existence to Catelyn, Robb, Jon, or any of the Stark supporters. So rumors existed of beautiful debutantes and/or common wenches of Eddard's time in the rebellion. If Eddard had left Jon in the South, then all of this would not have been an issue, but he brought Jon to Winterfell. So, even though Eddard taught his sons to be just and honorable, there was an unspoken rule that it was okay to mess around if the girl was pretty. And the next rule was that a man takes responsibility for his indiscretions. To me, this is how Robb was unprepared to deal with the repercussion of deflowering Jeyne Westerling.

At the time, Eddard was dead... Robb was still winning battles, but realized he was being outmaneuvered politically... Robb was wounded storming the Westerling castle... Sansa was a prisoner of Joffrey's... Arya was presumed lost or dead... and Robb had just received word of the murders of Bran and Rickon. Robb was in dire need of consolation... or some tangible reassurance that the rebellion could work out... that he was not going to end up as a head on a spike. While he was wounded in bed and worrying in the dark of the night, Jeyne slipped in to comfort him. Robb knew his father took comfort in the previous rebellion, so the son copied the father. The problem for Robb was that he sorely needed a physical reminder of love, of tenderness, and of the future because of the desperate situation in which he found himself... that he actually took it too far and fell in love with her.

Now what is a seventeen year old king who is already a military legend supposed do? How could he remember his oath to Walder Frey when he just found love (and the joy of intercourse)? How could he think he is bound by laws when every person in his life told him how awesome and powerful he was? How could he think he ccouldn't redo his deal with Walder Frey when his own mother, uncle, great uncle, and grandfather bowed to him? How could he believe that he's not a supernatural being when he controlled the most ferocious beast that anyone of them have ever seen?

I think the combination of incomplete training, grief, despair, a pretty face, and a sense of unchecked heroism were a bad combination for Robb. I think he forgot the one thing that Eddard did.... Eddard married the girl to gain the alliance on the spot. Eddard did not put it off.

And don't forget that it appears that Jeyne's mother and uncle set up Robb for a honey trap with Jeyne as the bait. Jeyne was most likely unaware that this was done with Tywin Lannister's approval. Jeyne's uncle, Rolf Spicer, was granted lands and title by Tommen. Jeyne's father was welcomed back to the King's Peace with money and more lands.

So Eddard had a reason(s) for not telling Catelyn and Jon the truth of Jon's parentage. But since Eddard was de facto monarch of the North, his personal secrets become State Secrets... and his heir should have had access to this information. If Robb had an inkling of what many readers think of Jon's origins... he might not have climbed into the sack with Jeyne.

It seems like the good characters just turn into complete jackasses sometimes, throwing away their chances for no particular reason:

For instance I don't remember exactly how Ned dies but I'm pretty sure it's some kind of jackassery that has nothing to do with honour. I think he goes to Cersei and basically announces that he's her enemy, her days are numbered etc. That's not honourable, that's being an NPC caricature. Especially when his shtick is as much about not flinching from the unpleasant side of things as it is about justice.

Let me just say that I only know of a few people who use the term jackassery. Do you live in Denver? Do we know each other? Is this post just jackassery to yank my chain? I know of four guys who would do this to me. Or mayhaps I'm just paranoid...

In my experience, story tellers (especially fantasy and sci-fi) make their characters too smart. The heroes anticipate every enemy plot and they consistently make wise choices for the long term... even when it's hitting the fan in the heat of battle. Most writers (novels, comics, screenplays) combat this by making the monsters bigger, the traps tougher, and the villains more sadistic instead of making their heroes more realistic... i.e. less wise, more human. Examples of these sages of situations include Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Hercule Poirot, Prince Hal (in Henry IV, Part One), Druss, Gandalf, Frodo, Aragorn, Ender, Katniss, Polgara, Arutha con Doin, Pug/Milamber, Honor Harrington, Paul Atreides, Hermione Granger, Flash Gordon, John Carter, Peter Parker (on film), every movie with Stallone, Schwarzenegger, or Damon, and every single hero in The Sword of Shanarra.

Humans often let petty slights, insults, and jealousies get in the way of long term benefits and relationships. If you have a adult sibling, then you know exactly what I mean.

Unlike a flower, whose bud takes days or weeks to blossom, love can blossom in an instant... and the fragrance of passion is a thousandfold stronger than jasmine.

That's why the stories of Abraham, Moses, David, Odysseus, Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Hester Prynne, Jean Valjean, Rooster Cogburn, Edmond Dantes, Cyrano de Bergerac, Sarah Connor (just from the first two Terminator movies), Huck Finn and Jim, Andy Dufresne and Red powerfully resonate with me. They have the ring of authenticity. These characters know the depths of sorrow, the dashing of dreams, the loneliness of abandonment, the immediacy of passion, the search for identity, the need for validation, the burning fire to fulfill the mission, and the longing for redemption. All of these characters were labeled as villains at one time or another.

Don't we all think of ourselves as the heroes of our stories? Don't we want to see ourselves as heroes to our families and friends? In my own life... I was a multi-sport star in high school. Leading scorer and captain in both football and basketball. Homecoming King. College athlete. 6'6". Good looking, if you'll allow me that. Isn't that all there is to being a hero? Tall, athletic, and handsome? I thought I'd always be a hero just by showing up. But after the death of my mother, I became bogged down by grief.... and it cost me my marriage and a couple of jobs. My brother and I seriously feuded. And guess what? I discovered that I was not the hero of those stories... I was not even an average person... I was the villain. Through grief, despair, frustration, failure, envy, and misfortunate circumstances, I'd become a villain. Oh, I still had many who loved me... I am still considered a caring and compassionate man by many, but the ex-wife, two bosses, and my brother know differently. They know that I can exceed almost everyone in jackassery.

It's hard to see the way out of the forest when you're in the thick of it.

Mr. Martin has used a peculiar method of telling his story. Each chapter is from a certain character's perspective. We see how each character and the characters around him/her have a limited scope of vision... but we, as readers, see the entire story... or at least as GRRM wants us to see. We have a much fuller perspective on the larger picture than Robb had. He thought Arya, Bran, and Rickon were dead, but we knew differently. He thought Eddard fathered a *******. He thought his father would not compromise his honor, except for the one time.

All that being said, I certainly sound like a fanboy. I don't want to be a fanboy... but I really do like this story. Mayhaps, you see something I don't and I'm just making this fit my preconceptions.

And that's just my two cents... well, maybe three cents considering the length of the post.

 

[Boaz]

Idealect, I did a bit of research on the forum and I found an old (and locked) thread regarding an Amazon review that was reposted here on the forums..
The poster seemed to dislike most everything GRRM did with the story. But the poster did have a complaint similar to yours...

His "heroes" are impossible to take seriously because they keep doing impossibly dumb things such as putting themselves and their families into the hands of their enemies. His "villains" are impossible to take seriously because they are incapable of successfully assassinating a middle aged woman, or, for that matter, a young child.

Not everyone will like the story.... and for a lot of reasons. If you read the entire review like I did, then you might agree with me that it comes across as contrarian for the sake of notoriety. I was immediately reminded of the song, The Critic, when I read that review.

Idealect, let me make it clear... I'm not comparing you to The Critic. I'm not lumping you in with an obvious troller. You're posting here in a fan forum. So you're not looking for notoriety or trying to affect sales. You're an interested fan of fantasy... just like me. And I've posted hypercriticism of Eddard's and Catelyn's parenting style... In fact, blasting Eddard is something of a hobby of mine, but it's nothing like how I rip Catelyn. My comments on her in Is Catelyn Dead?? are particularly scathing, but I was playing a bit of Devil's Advocate... and I might have been drinking... and I might be guilty of being The Critic.

He did a 5-star column on a band you never heard.
He did a bluegrass review about an unkind word.
He thought it was time to ask his boss for a raise,
His boss said, "I can't tell if anybody's even readin your page."

Yea...

So he thought...and he thought a little more.

He caught a young hot star headin into town,
And then he hid behind his typewriter and gunned the boy down.
Here come the letters, the e-mails, the faxes,
They raised him to 20,000 dollars after taxes.

He's a happy critic! He's rollin in the dough.

"Man I could do this forever...this is easy. Everybody's readin my column!"

But please, don't tell my mama that I write the music column for the Gazette.
She still thinks I play piano down at the Cathouse."

The song has four verses, but I only posted the last two.

Playing piano in a whorehouse is more respectable than being a critic? Wow.