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

[Ursa major]

I can see where you're coming from, LightBringer: no leader in modern times - particularly a nice elected one wearing both a suit and a wide smile - would ever sanction the individual killing of the leaders of forces opposing them.

* Resists the temptation to drone on about this. *

But as Koopa has said, there are plenty of cruel and murderous people in positions of power in the modern world. Where we live, however, the sociopaths amongst the ranks of the rich and powerful can make themselves richer and more powerful by using a wide range of legal means, without having to resort to murder and mayhem.


As an aside, it's hard to disagree -- though I would really like to -- with Tywin's supposed** opinion about the Red Wedding, that it achieved the same aim as would the much greater slaughter of one or more battles. (This is why I find it hard to get too worked up about drone attacks, particularly as it's a very long time since leaders - military or civil - have positioned themselves anywhere near an active battlefield.)



** - Supposed, because I haven't seen season three of Game of Thrones, only read reviews of it, and I don't recall the sentiment being expressed by Tywin in the books (which may have more to do with my powers of recall than the content of the books).

 

[Darth Angelus]

I can see where you're coming from, LightBringer: no leader in modern times - particularly a nice elected one wearing both a suit and a wide smile - would ever sanction the individual killing of the leaders of forces opposing them.

* Resists the temptation to drone on about this. *

But as Koopa has said, there are plenty of cruel and murderous people in positions of power in the modern world. Where we live, however, the sociopaths amongst the ranks of the rich and powerful can make themselves richer and more powerful by using a wide range of legal means, without having to resort to murder and mayhem.

This sums it up pretty well, particularly the last paragraph. Human society as a whole (at least in our part of the world) has evolved to a stage which is civilized enough that you cannot openly sanction murder, but there are plenty of other psychopathic ways to gain more riches and power when spilling blood is not socially acceptable.

As an aside, it's hard to disagree -- though I would really like to -- with Tywin's supposed** opinion about the Red Wedding, that it achieved the same aim as would the much greater slaughter of one or more battles. (This is why I find it hard to get too worked up about drone attacks, particularly as it's a very long time since leaders - military or civil - have positioned themselves anywhere near an active battlefield.)



** - Supposed, because I haven't seen season three of Game of Thrones, only read reviews of it, and I don't recall the sentiment being expressed by Tywin in the books (which may have more to do with my powers of recall than the content of the books).

I can confirm that Tywin said something to that effect.

However, whether you can disagree with him or not depends on how you look at it. Sure, it meant that fewer people died in the short term than the number that would have died in open battle, but there is a certain (pretty high) abstract cost in by creating public distrust, in the laws of hospitality.
I mean, as news spread of what happened to Robb, people with some power in that world might become reluctant to visit others with power, as guests, if there is any grudge or power rivalry there. That could create serious problems.
Imagine if leaders in our world never dared to make state visits to foreign countries becuase they might be murdered, as they are surrounded by foreign forces, rather than their own. Each event like the Red Wedding pushes the world one step closer to that problematic level of distrust, and eventually, leaders would not dare to actually meet to discuss political issues.

I would argue that you make the world a worse place by showing that various codes of honour in a civilized society (such as the laws of hospitality) cannot be trusted.

So while I do agree that the Red Wedding saved lives in the short term, this abstract (trust related) price was significant.

 

[Ursa major]

Yes, there is a danger of societal freying.


But you're right that the breaking of hospitality laws is serious. One could argue, though, that after the war is over, the Red Wedding might be written off as just another of the many transgressions that come with war, and that it would have no place in peacetime. (And as today, rather sharper spin-doctoring than I can manage would be used to excuse the killing.)

 

[Darth Angelus]

Well, the way I see it, the Red Wedding might be written off as a transgression that comes with war. However, writing it off like that might also fail. In the end, whether it would work would depend on how third parties in that world looks at it.


I guess, as far as the Lannister part in the Red Wedding goes, writing it off as a transgression in war would probably work. The Frey and Bolton part, however, is another matter. They were not at war with Robb, and that may be somewhat of a problem, I fear.

I can't say I know how it would end up, in this case. However, I do think that only so many Red Weddings can occur in a given era of history in a given world, before people start to think twice about being someone else's guest.


One could argue that Robb violated his agreement, too, of course, but that is another matter.

 

[LightBringer]

First off, getting power and position through slightly unethical means (as some of you suggested) is something entirely different than what happens in the books. Sure there are bad people, but something like the Red Wedding would be considered a heinous crime anywhere in the world. It seems that there is this prevalent view today (especially among people who read books and don't get out a lot), that there are evil people everywhere and the world is just a terrible place. And what do these people base this on? What they read (which might be mostly fiction, and yes, I'm generalizing to make a point), and I guess to some extent what they see on the news, which of course mostly report the bad things that happen (this is to be expected). It's the cynical world view of a shut-in loser. I'm sorry if that upsets any of you, but that's how I see it. Most people in the world are not evil, even in those countries where there is a lot of bloodshed (like Iraq), this is the work of a few people, not the majority.

Secondly, "written off as just another of the many transgressions that come with war"? This is not realistic. Look at the Massacre of Glencoe (which the Red Wedding is partly based on). Not anywhere near the same number of people were killed as in the fictitious Red Wedding, but it was still (rightly as far as I'm concerned) considered a terrible crime at the time it happened, and it is still remembered as such today. People do NOT forget these things. The fact that something like the Red Wedding would take so many accomplices to go through with it, makes it unlikely to be carried out successfully. In the Massacre of Glencoe, some of the lieutenants refused to carry out the orders they were given (they broke their own swords) and two other detachements were late on taking up their positions. It could have been caused by a snowstorm, but it is also believed that the soldiers would not take part in what they knew to be a heinous crime.

Lastly, those of you who says it would save a lot of lives because it ends the war earlier. Are you serious? Arranging a massacre like this cannot be excused, I don't care what kind of logic you use. On a battlefield, everyone knows that they can be killed, it's expected and accepted. When you are someone's guest (or they are yours), it's an entirely different matter. There's a certain level of trust, and there are certain rules that apply, and the breaking of those are inexcusable. I'm not sure if my point is being made clearly enough, but I don't know any better way to express it. Doing something for the "greater good" does not make it acceptable. The greater good can be defined by anyone according to how they see the world, and then used to justify any means they make use of to achieve it. This is wrong in my opinion. The nazis also believed they were doing what they did for some "greater good".

 

[Darth Angelus]

Heard of Godwin's law?

Really, though, I certainly agree that the Red Wedding was beneath despicable. No argument from me, there. And it will probably not be forgotten anytime soon.

I guess from one, extremely utilitarianistic perspective, one might justify the Red Wedding, for the reason Tywin brings up*. That is, if you disregard the distrust it creates, as a consequence, as I think a lot of versions of utilitarianism would have problems with the Red Wedding, too.
On the other hand, I would guess any deontological ethics system (and you certainly seem to lean in the deontological direction) is likely to give a loud and emphatic NO to an act like the Red Wedding.

However, I do think a lot of people who are fond of power in the real world are somewhat worse than you think, and go a bit beyond "slightly unethical" means from time to time. And you have to remember that the story aren't following average, ordinary people all that much, instead focusing on nobility, particularly the most powerful houses. Then again, even if you take that into account, certain Game of Thrones characters are admittedly over the top.
Even so, I am not letting myself get all too upset with a work of fiction, and this doesn't spoil my enjoyment as much as it seems to spoil yours.


* I do not think this is where Tywin is actually coming from, of course. It is far more likely (almost certain, I'd say) that he is just rationalizing. I doubt he cares what is actually the most ethical thing to do, from any perspective. He is just trying to serve his house's interests.

 

[Koopa]

No i'm saying that the world is a cruel place because:
-In some countries people still get stoned
-A woman who travelled to a certain country was raped, then imprisoned when she pressed charges because it was her 'fault' the man had commited adultery...
- In Congo there are still child soldiers, and thousands of people have died there in the past decades in a struggle for power and wealth.
- I saw a documantary in which a man sold his daughter for 30 cows at the age of 12 to become the wife of an islamtic extremist
- Some guy just electrocuted his own two children because his wife said she wanted to leave, to basically prove his threats weren't empty.
- young adults from western countries are being seduced to got fight in the Syrian war.
-...

this all at the top of my head. Seriously though if you just follow the newspaper there is a sad story every day in it, and the newspapers usually don't cover the real cruel stuff. After all atrocities which have existed for god knows how long and wars in Africa that are never-ending soon lose their newsvalue.

It's not because Europe and North America are for the most part at peace, that there aren't conflicts in the world at large. And conflicts/war are just one form of bad stuff, plenty of cruel stuff outta there in socalled peaceful countries.

 

[Ursa major]

* I do not think this is where Tywin is actually coming from, of course. It is far more likely (almost certain, I'd say) that he is just rationalizing. I doubt he cares what is actually the most ethical thing to do, from any perspective. He is just trying to serve his house's interests.

Yes, he's almost certainly rationalising his (and his human instruments') actions.

 

[Gumboot]

I think something to consider is that the history of Westeros has established that the population play pretty fast and loose with the rules. Remember Jaime Lannister's crime, which must be considered much worse than violating the rules of hospitality (not only has he violated a holy vow but he also committed high treason), and yet he not only wasn't officially censured for it, but gets to keep doing the same job!

My view of Westeros is that it's the cynics's version of Medieval Europe; that is, a land with lots of lofty ideals and codes of ethics, which are adhered to only when convenient by 90% of the population.

I think there's ample evidence historically that the ethical codes and moral ideals of Medieval Europe were often put aside in the face of practicalities, but I think Martin's world takes this much further than our own world did. In Westeros the typical lord disregards any rules or regulations when it suits them, and there's little consequences for it (examples being Roose Bolton and Walder Frey). Those who make an effort to adhere to most social codes (such as Tyrion) are a rare exception, and devout adherents to the rules at whatever cost are rarer still (Ned Stark).

I think in the real world, the actual distribution was (and still is today, and always has been) heavily weighted towards people like Tyrion who are mostly doing their best to abide by the rules, but aren't exactly perfect. People like Ned Stark are still very unusual, but I think those who ignore the rules and do what suits them (The Boltons and Freys of the world) are equally rare in the real world.

In that regard, I think Martin's depicting isn't particularly realistic, but at the same time the Red Wedding is perfectly in keeping with the internal logic of his world.

 

[LightBringer]

No i'm saying that the world is a cruel place because:
-In some countries people still get stoned
-A woman who travelled to a certain country was raped, then imprisoned when she pressed charges because it was her 'fault' the man had commited adultery...
- In Congo there are still child soldiers, and thousands of people have died there in the past decades in a struggle for power and wealth.
- I saw a documantary in which a man sold his daughter for 30 cows at the age of 12 to become the wife of an islamtic extremist
- Some guy just electrocuted his own two children because his wife said she wanted to leave, to basically prove his threats weren't empty.
- young adults from western countries are being seduced to got fight in the Syrian war.

I realize that there are bad people and that horrific acts are comitted. I do not deny that at all. But considering how many people there are in the world, it's to be expected that some of them do these things. That does not make it okay, of course, but that's the way it is. The point I was making is that, these kinds of horrible actions are committed by a select few. In something like the Red Wedding, because of the number of people that would have to be involved, someone would either refuse to take part of it, or warn the victims. I don't believe that all the members of a family (Roslin seeming to be the only one who didn't want a part of it) and every soldier at their command would just kill all those people without a second thought under circumstances that made the killings much worse than ordinary murder, just because their lord ordered them to do it (again look at the Massacre of Glencoe).

I guess from one, extremely utilitarianistic perspective, one might justify the Red Wedding, for the reason Tywin brings up. That is, if you disregard the distrust it creates, as a consequence, as I think a lot of versions of utilitarianism would have problems with the Red Wedding, too.
On the other hand, I would guess any deontological ethics system (and you certainly seem to lean in the deontological direction) is likely to give a loud and emphatic NO to an act like the Red Wedding. However, I do think a lot of people who are fond of power in the real world are somewhat worse than you think, and go a bit beyond "slightly unethical" means from time to time. And you have to remember that the story aren't following average, ordinary people all that much, instead focusing on nobility, particularly the most powerful houses. Then again, even if you take that into account, certain Game of Thrones characters are admittedly over the top.
Even so, I am not letting myself get all too upset with a work of fiction, and this doesn't spoil my enjoyment as much as it seems to spoil yours.

Yes, I do lean in the deontological direction, kudos for noticing it (I'm not being sarcastic, I just wanted to make that clear). I've always found utilitarianism to be a questionable form of ethics for the things that can be justified by saying it's all for a so-called greater good. Tywin Lannister is probably rationalizing like you say or he just doesn't care much, doing abominable acts to stay in power is not new to him (the treacherous way he sacked King's landing, the ordering of Rhaegar's children to be killed). My stance is that some things are wrong no matter what, and when I see some people justifying the Red Wedding or saying it's understandable, I can't help but speak out, even if it's all fiction. My main problem with A Song of Ice and Fire is probably that I thought it would be completely different from what it was, I feel like the author deliberately screwed me (and lots of others who share my view), and that makes me angry. Yes, it's just a book (I actually started with the tv series, maybe if I had started with the books I would have stopped before the point of no return), but when someone manipulates the story like that, well, let's just say I would have preferred knowing beforehand what kind of story it was, so I could have steered away from it. A book this bleak and uninspiring really isn't my cup of tea. That being said, I still find it interesting to discuss these things, and I did not register here solely to complain about the books. However, I'm not one of those George R.R. Martin worshippers who think everything he writes is great. I like the world he created, but not how the story unfolded.

Also, I agree that some powerful people do things that are more than slightly unethical, but these days, because democracy is a part of the governing system in most countries, there's a limit to how much a powerful person can get away with before he/she will fall from power.

In that regard, I think Martin's depicting isn't particularly realistic, but at the same time the Red Wedding is perfectly in keeping with the internal logic of his world.

Indeed, the Red Wedding can be said to fit in his world, but not in medieval Europe. That's why I find it strange that so many say his world and his characters are realistic (ignoring the magic and dragons of course). But about the part of Jaime killing the Mad King. I don't think that's nearly as bad as the Red Wedding. You have to consider that Aerys was a complete nut who thought he could as he pleased just because he was king. Being a king in medieval Europe, you could probably do a great deal of mistakes compared to those who hold power today, but there was still a limit to what the people will accept before they rise in rebellion. Robert's rebellion seems to be realistic enough, though perhaps the pardoning of some of his enemies would not be what a real life king would do. Still, the more unrealistic part are present in the books because the author isn't really concerned with what's realistic (although I'm sure he claims to be), rather he's concerned with what is unexpected. He wants you to choke on your coffee when you read his books. That's the only thing I can conclude with when it comes to the author's intentions.

 

[Koopa]

well if the numbers can be believed, no doubt they are exagerrated 450.000 warriors where killed by the Qin in the battle of Changping...

As for cruelty, before the war erupted the lands where more or less peaceful. With GRRM somewhat adopting the caste sytem, mongolian ways for the Dothraki, ... . Once the war erupted the lvl and amount of cruelty, as well as the amount of men being capable of doing cruel things don't seem exagerrated to me either. One need only to look at the concentration camps in west germany, or concentration camps of Japan to know that a system of cruelty from the top-down is more than possible. Or that acts of cruelty committed by the people at the bottom can at time be easily overooked, or even silently approved of. The sacking of Berlin by the russians is a great example of that.

We like to think humans are fundamently good, but we are in truth fundamentally good AND evil. We are flawed beings easily corrupted. The experiment in which one group of people become prisoners, and the other wardens is a good example of that. As well as the experiment in which people where told to electrocute others (only a priest refused).

Not that i think highly of priests.... just in that experiment i do tip my hat of to that particular priest.

 

[Gumboot]

My main problem with A Song of Ice and Fire is probably that I thought it would be completely different from what it was, I feel like the author deliberately screwed me (and lots of others who share my view), and that makes me angry. Yes, it's just a book (I actually started with the tv series, maybe if I had started with the books I would have stopped before the point of no return), but when someone manipulates the story like that, well, let's just say I would have preferred knowing beforehand what kind of story it was, so I could have steered away from it.

I've heard this sort of argument a lot of times, with people expressing anger as if Martin "tricked" them or something. It's nonsense. Martin doesn't hold any punches. One of the first events in the entire book is an incestuous knight attempting to murder a small child. Martin was telling you exactly what sort of book it was right from the beginning. If you didn't want to take notice, that's your fault, not his. Heck, the Red Wedding itself is foreshadowed dozens of times in the books.

Indeed, the Red Wedding can be said to fit in his world, but not in medieval Europe. That's why I find it strange that so many say his world and his characters are realistic (ignoring the magic and dragons of course).

"Realistic" doesn't have to mean "exactly the same as some arbitrary period of our history". Humans have done, and justified, vastly worse things than the Red Wedding. Most of them in the 20th Century.

But about the part of Jaime killing the Mad King. I don't think that's nearly as bad as the Red Wedding.

I wasn't talking about what you thought, I was talking about in Martin's world. Violating a religous vow to your king is far, far worse than violating the customs of hospitality in the world of Westeros. That the Lannisters don't hesitate to do either is an indication that none of these rules are particularly sacrosanct.

You have to consider that Aerys was a complete nut who thought he could as he pleased just because he was king.

That justifies Jaime's actions to a modern person - and indeed that's the entire point - but it doesn't justify his actions in the society of Westeros.

Being a king in medieval Europe, you could probably do a great deal of mistakes compared to those who hold power today, but there was still a limit to what the people will accept before they rise in rebellion.

The King of Westeros has substantially greater power than a medieval King though. They're more like a Roman Emperor. And remember, Robert's rebellion wasn't about "the injustices of the King", it was about the Crown Prince running off with the girl he wanted. Robert was just as selfish and self-absorbed as the rest of them.

Robert's rebellion seems to be realistic enough, though perhaps the pardoning of some of his enemies would not be what a real life king would do.

That was pretty common. That's the thing about a feudal system; there's no national identity, or sense of "country". Your loyalty is to your feudal lord. If your feudal lord is defeated and you swear fealty to a new lord, that new lord now has your loyalty. The only enemies you need dispose of is the ones who refuse to transfer their oaths of fealty to you.

 

[LightBringer]

well if the numbers can be believed, no doubt they are exagerrated 450.000 warriors where killed by the Qin in the battle of Changping...

As for cruelty, before the war erupted the lands where more or less peaceful. With GRRM somewhat adopting the caste sytem, mongolian ways for the Dothraki, ... . Once the war erupted the lvl and amount of cruelty, as well as the amount of men being capable of doing cruel things don't seem exagerrated to me either. One need only to look at the concentration camps in west germany, or concentration camps of Japan to know that a system of cruelty from the top-down is more than possible. Or that acts of cruelty committed by the people at the bottom can at time be easily overooked, or even silently approved of. The sacking of Berlin by the russians is a great example of that.

We like to think humans are fundamently good, but we are in truth fundamentally good AND evil. We are flawed beings easily corrupted. The experiment in which one group of people become prisoners, and the other wardens is a good example of that. As well as the experiment in which people where told to electrocute others (only a priest refused).

Not that i think highly of priests.... just in that experiment i do tip my hat of to that particular priest.

Of course cruelty can be committed, especially by soldiers during a war. That, however, does not mean that something like the Red Wedding was likely to happen in medieval Europe. The battle you mentioned, it's hard to say what happened at that time, but if that many soldiers were killed, that's certainly a terrible crime. But this was long before the middle age, and by what I've read about the middle age, something similar to this would be unlikely to happen. And the circumstances are also different. This was after all a battle, not a wedding.

Those countries you mentioned, yes, a system like that is possible, but once again, does these things happen in most countries during a war? No. But if the wrong people are in charge, and the soldiers are too obedient or too cowardly to refuse to carry out orders they know to be wrong, (a lesson hopefully learned after world war II) then atrocities might very well be committed. War brings out the worst in some humans, I have no problem believing that. Note that I haven't disagreed with this. You, however seem set on believing that the world is a terrible place and that humans are inherently evil. THAT is what I disagree with. As I've said before, there are bad people in the world (in varying degrees, some are slightly more bad than good, others, though I believe these are rare, are almost pure evil), but the majority of humans are not cruel and malevolent.

Some of this is speculation, but since it's difficult to know for certain, that's all I can bring to the table. The Sovjets were probably a lot worse than the Western Allied Forces as the regime they served was a brutal and ruthless dictatorship, and after years with war many of the soldiers had little humanity left in them. But again, and I'm not justifying the crimes, they were terrible, I don't think all the soldiers took part in this. Probably more than enough soldiers took part and it's atrocious, but I doubt everyone was part of it. I read some about it just now, and the russians soldiers (the mongols are especially mentioned) were likely much more barbaric (for whatever reason) than the Western. Do you think the Western Allied Forces would have done the same if they had taken Berlin? I doubt it. This was the Russians' work, and I agree it was terrible. These crimes might have been somewhat brushed aside because the Russians helped the Allies win the war. I don't know the details, but I think that's possible.

 

[LightBringer]

Gumboot, try to keep your words a little more civil, this is not youtube.

I've heard this sort of argument a lot of times, with people expressing anger as if Martin "tricked" them or something. It's nonsense. Martin doesn't hold any punches. One of the first events in the entire book is an incestuous knight attempting to murder a small child. Martin was telling you exactly what sort of book it was right from the beginning. If you didn't want to take notice, that's your fault, not his. Heck, the Red Wedding itself is foreshadowed dozens of times in the books.

You don't agree? Fine. I find it manipulative, if you don't, good for you. But please spare me your condescensions. I got the impression that this site had more serious and objective debaters than what you seem to be when you reply that way. Stick to the facts when you try to debate me. Where opinions are concerned, I have no problem hearing yours, but don't act like you have monopoly on the truth. And if my words seem sharp, it's because I don't like that kind of response when I state my opinions.

Humans have done, and justified, vastly worse things than the Red Wedding.

Hardly. And I was talking about whether it was realistic in medieval Europe, not about war crimes in the 20th century (as I assume you're referring to). As I've said, read about the Massacre of Glencoe. Whenever realism is discussed, the era (sometime in the middle age would be the closest to the time period in the books) in which the actions take place are of course significant.

That justifies Jaime's actions to a modern person - and indeed that's the entire point - but it doesn't justify his actions in the society of Westeros.

As far as I can see it absolutely does (in the world of Westeros, not just my opinion). If a king is completely crazy he will be overthrown. The people do not love their king for long if he does the acts of madman.

The King of Westeros has substantially greater power than a medieval King though. They're more like a Roman Emperor. And remember, Robert's rebellion wasn't about "the injustices of the King", it was about the Crown Prince running off with the girl he wanted. Robert was just as selfish and self-absorbed as the rest of them.

Look at Henry Tudor. He had about the same amount of power that Robert Baratheon has in the books.

The rebellion didn't happen solely because of the abduction of Lyanna Stark. The killing of Brandon and Rickard Stark, and the Mad King demanding the heads of Robert and Ned turned (among others) the entire North, Eyrie and the Stormlands against the Mad King.

I wasn't talking about what you thought, I was talking about in Martin's world. Violating a religous vow to your king is far, far worse than violating the customs of hospitality in the world of Westeros. That the Lannisters don't hesitate to do either is an indication that none of these rules are particularly sacrosanct.

Really? Then how come the reactions and repercussions after the Red Wedding are so much more severe than what happened to Jaime after he killed the Mad King?

Again, disagree all you want, but let's keep the debate somewhat cool and objective, shall we?

 

[Ursa major]

Could we please calm things down, people. (That's not a question, it's just me trying very hard to be polite.)

I and other mods do not want to have to take action, but we will if it becomes necessary. (And as with referees in sporting competitions, we'd rather not have the participants trying to act as referees, for obvious reasons.)

 

[laumaia]

Hi all,

I read all 12 pages of this topic throughout my day at work. I finished the books last year and I have to tell you that in 2013 I read almost 50 books, in 2011/2012 I only read ASOIAF. This is not because I didn't like them but because of the so called padding that was talked about early in this post.
Looking back I enjoyed the killings... (sounds weird hum?) but as I was reading I had to mourn the characters, many of them who I liked it, I got so pissed of, I quit reading for months until I had the strength to start again.
I couldn't start anything more until I finished but a series that should have taken 1 month to read, took more than a year.
I really enjoy the characters and the personality GRRM ivens them, every each one of us have different opinions on them and want different people to stay alive/win the war.

I still can't understand why most od the time people can't accept different opinions and just speak their minds, instead of criticizing. Both my hubby and I read the books. He loves the way Martin writes, he reads the books quickly and finds the writing flow great, for me it's the contrary, I love the story but the way it's written... For my taste it should have less randomness, less description that I don't think it's needed to "be" in the story... Despite is love for GRRM writings, I'm the one who can't stop thinking/talking about it, I'm the one who watched every tv series episode...
So... Who likes it the most? I believe a person who doesn't like the writing can still love the story, though most of the times it makes as fell crappy

João... Quanto a ti... Dá um tempo, nem que seja um dois anos e quando te apetecer pega outra vez nos livros. Custa um bocado mas acho que vale a pena só pela novela que é não saber quem vai sair vivo ihihi

(for you people who don't understand portuguese...I said that we should make an effort to try an read the next books when he feels like it as I believe that it will be nice to know who will survive...ahahah)

 

[ZombieWife]

I guess I'm wondering what characters have died where there deaths did not serve the story?

1. Ed Stark. He wasn't the hero. He was a representative of honor-bound politics that really get you nowhere in Westeros--unless you live in the north without much interaction w/the rest of the world. He had his heroic arc during the uprising with Robert. He and Robert both had their glory.

2. Robb. Not a main character. We rarely saw him on the page. He made a mistake. He got fracked by that.

I don't feel like there were any gratuitous deaths. Characters made their mistakes and they suffered for that.

 

[Tywin]

Wow, it looks like I missed some fireworks in this old thread.


To give my own two cents on Lightbringer's comments:

George R.R. Martin is a manipulative author

Yes, absolutely. He understands what a literary plot arc is and he toys with our expectations. He has said as much (often). His point normally being that the real world doesn't follow that pattern (real heroes don't die at the climatic moment, they normally choke on a bone at dinner or something stupid like everyone else that dies).

Daenerys goes from one bad decision to the next, but somehow miraculously survives, and those ******* Lannisters still sit on the throne.

Yes, much like reality TV, he keeps around the people that we love to hate. I'm surprised he gave us the satisfaction of killing off Joffrey. It made the plot more realistic (that there might be some comeuppance for being a total douchebag), but it reduced our emotional investment in the story (at least for me).

The Red Wedding, on the other hand, I was absolutely pissed. I threw the book away in disgust. I had previously said to myself that if Robb dies this story is more or less over for me, and it is. I don't care anymore. The problem is that the author does the exact same thing twice, the first time with Ned, it worked, but the second time when Robb is killed in the worst possible way, it just felt like a cheap trick to shock the readers.

As I listened to "show watchers" this past year, and as I listen to my wife (who has kept away from the show and is just now reading ASOS), I get the impression that you may be wrong on this one.

First off, they really think that Robb's important: he's the shining beacon on the hill. He's the expected hero (expected dramatic plot arc), and also symbolizes safety/refuge/the end of the journey for his sisters. Remember that real life does not have this kind of linear plotline, and GRRM knows it.

Secondly, I heard (and in the present hear from my wife who is about 50 pages into ASOS) that the killing of characters isn't so bad and that people 'hyped up' these books as being an emotional roller coaster which they don't live up to. [Side note, my wife is 8 months pregnant and I'm hoping that she delivers before the Red wedding]

The book builds up to the battles for what seems like an eternity, but then somehow manages to end before any of them have been fought. Another cheap trick to make you keep reading I guess.

Yes, this is on purpose. Real life vs plot arc and climatic battles where the hero either triumphs, or fails tragically at the point of decision.

Did you know that George Patton died after getting run over by a wagon after the surrender of Nazi Germany? - I bet GRRM does.

The are too many bad characters, there are too many characters who are cruel, treacherous, power-hungry and dishonourable. Humans have flaws, but everyone aren't backstabbers, rapists and coldblooded murderers. Even if the Dark Ages were harder times, I don't believe humans were so much more evil back then, it just doesn't make any sense. We are after all descended from these people, if they had such propensity for doing evil things, we would have that today as well (and before anyone says that we do, I'll just say no, we don't).

I absolutely agree. I completely believe that there will be a reckoning though for the overly bad characters.

Roose Bolton will not remain Warden of the North, much less Ramsay. Roose even mentions the danger when talking with his *******.

The bad Lannisters (Joffrey and Tywin) already have been taken out of the picture, and all we are left with is Cersei who is more of a clown than a threat. Do we really hate her at this point, or do we feel sorry for her?

My own take is that Ned Stark wasn't stupid, he just understood the greater reality of what was going on. He died at the hands of the Children of the Summer who don't know what real hardship is. The wolves will survive the winter, living the way that he taught them.

 

[Koopa]

Actually lightbringer the point i was making is that Humans are both good and evil.
We are capable of both given the buttons that are pushed. And it's not because you like to think we are predetermined to do good that, that is the case. The culture you grow up in great part determines what you think is doing right and wrong.

Overall, in everyday life the most of us, for various social reasons choose to behave in a good way. But that don't mean the other side of the coin isn't in us as well.

I think GRRM is showing this quiet well. There are almost no characters truly evil, and no characters truly good. For most of them both sides are shown.

You think the Lannisters evil, and therefore can't stand the fact that they still sit the Iron Throne, but that's your view on them. Sory to say this isn't an Eddings book, some average holllywood movie where good and evil are easily determined. Thank god for that or i would have stopped reading a long time ago.

Edward Longshanks would have made a great Lannister

 

[LightBringer]

Could we please calm things down, people. (That's not a question, it's just me trying very hard to be polite.)

I and other mods do not want to have to take action, but we will if it becomes necessary. (And as with referees in sporting competitions, we'd rather not have the participants trying to act as referees, for obvious reasons.)

I agree. I just got a little carried away by the way this other guy (Gumboot) dismissed my opinions as nonsense. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I don't like when people state their opinions like facts and basically says that everyone who disagree are idiots.

First off, they really think that Robb's important: he's the shining beacon on the hill. He's the expected hero (expected dramatic plot arc), and also symbolizes safety/refuge/the end of the journey for his sisters. Remember that real life does not have this kind of linear plotline, and GRRM knows it.

Robb is indeed that important, and that's why the story lost most of its appeal to me when he died (and the way he dies just makes it all the worse). This goes back to what this thread started about. But like I said, perhaps I would have been less upset if I had read the books first because although Robb is a big character there as well, he is made even more important on the tv show (in the books we mostly see him through Catelyn's eyes, in the series he has many scenes on his own as well).

Sory to say this isn't an Eddings book, some average holllywood movie where good and evil are easily determined. Thank god for that or i would have stopped reading a long time ago.

True, and it doesn't have to have a happy ending for me to enjoy it. But the way it has turned out just isn't my kind of story. That's the root of it. We clearly have some different views, but I respect your opinion.